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 thought creation depended on whose opinion had more votes?
.
Macroevolution is microevolution over the course of millions of years, .
I'm sure that's how you've construed the thread, Grady. That doesn't change my previous post in the slightest. How you perceive things seems to be diametrically different than how others do.
You made a blanket claim no one else here has an issue with microevolution, but I know that's not entirely true, so indeed that link was relevant for those who elect to make the distinction between macro and microevolution. If it's not useful or of interest to you, then don't read it and find another way to contribute to the thread.
I am just saying that the majority of IDers and Creation scientists do believe in micro evolution. A butterfly may evolve bigger spots on it's wings, but it is still a butterfly. It is macro evolution (evolution a higher taxa than species) that is a problem, like the monkey to man theory.
What did it sound like to you then?No one thinks that, or at least no one should.
OK. Just one question, what is evolution exactly..in your own words?Nope, nor has evolution ever been dependent on those who accept it as a biological truth, or a heliocentric universe. That wasn't my point in my response to Grady.
OK, I wasn't too serious with that one.Ha. I guess this is the closest I'll get to being a teen mom.
I have heard evos claim there is no such thing as micro evolution.First off, what you claim is "micro-evolution" is macro-evolution....
I have heard evos claim there is no such thing as micro evolution.
How much did the creatures created in Eden evolve in their lifetimes? Perhaps so much in some cases, that some who embrace the terms micro or macro would think it was a macro amount.
Creationists.....what would it matter??
.
Hilarious.That's right properly speaking it is all evolution. Creationists have admitted to micro-evolution, but they have never shown that there is a limit to micro-evolution.
There is a problem that you have not dealt with. You keep forgetting about population bottlenecks. They spell doom for your "altered state".
Hilarious.
Do you think the Creator did not know what was required to populate earth?? Here is a hint: the only way so called population bottlenecks would be a problem for a different state past would be if genetics were the same. The key words there being same--different! In other words the problem you imagine only would be a problem if it were not different! NOT if it was!
Hoo ha.
If there was a small population after the flood, we can't call that a bottleneck. That was nature in fine form. Since the former state likely existed till well over a century after the flood, I am not sure how your bottlenecks are any problem at all?You are the only one that anyone is laughing at dad.
Your so called altered state would have been before the population bottleneck would have shown up. Heck, they were the cause of the bottlenecks.
It is something that you cannot explain because you don't understand it.
If there was a small population after the flood, we can't call that a bottleneck. That was nature in fine form. Since the former state likely existed till well over a century after the flood, I am not sure how your bottlenecks are any problem at all?
.
If you don't know the basics of what you try to argue against, don't blame others. No news there. There are many things that I have posited would require the change after the flood. The fast evolving of animals from the ark, population growth, lifespans, continental separation, and the lack of killing heat....etc.Funny man. Now that your delusional state does not work at the end of the flood you have to say it lasted longer.
All evidence supports it including history and the bible. There is more in life than your colored impositions on evidences that you have called science for too long.If you don't have any evidence that supports your claim all you have is a delusion. .
If you don't know the basics of what you try to argue against, don't blame others. No news there. There are many things that I have posited would require the change after the flood. The fast evolving of animals from the ark, population growth, lifespans, continental separation, and the lack of killing heat....etc.
All evidence supports it including history and the bible. There is more in life than your colored impositions on evidences that you have called science for too long.
.
Just give the belief tainted evidences you have sullied a bath, and voila! The bible clearly supports a future and past that is different in many ways. The truth of the matter is that science doesn't know what state existed in the past, and has no monopoly on how evidences are looked at. They have religion.And you have never shown any evidence for that change. Neither Biblical and certainly not scientific.
Without evidence all you have is a delusional state.
Just give the belief tainted evidences you have sullied a bath, and voila! The bible clearly supports a future and past that is different in many ways. The truth of the matter is that science doesn't know what state existed in the past, and has no monopoly on how evidences are looked at. They have religion.
Evolution is no problem at all for the bible creation by God one week long ago.
.
That's right properly speaking it is all evolution. Creationists have admitted to micro-evolution, but they have never shown that there is a limit to micro-evolution.
sure there is a limit, it's population (sexually speaking). A rabbit cannot mate with a squirel and so forth. But somehow you believe that a man came from a monkey. This would be what a genus is, a population that is sexually compatible. This is why there is a barrier for macroevolution. Because no genus has ever evolved into another genus, because they are not sexually compatible.
it looks like the inventor of the modern taxonomy also views genus as
a type of barrier:
"The FROG-FISH, or the metamorphosis is very paradoxical, as Nature
would not admit the change of one Genus into another one of a
different
Class. Rana, as all amphibians, possesses lungs and spiny bones. Spiny
fishes are
provided with gills instead of lungs. Therefore this change would be
contrary to
nature's law. For if this fish is provided with gills, it will be
different from Rana and
the amphibians; if with lungs, it will be a Lizard, for there is all
the world of difference
between them and Chondropterygii and Plagiuri. "
Carl Linnaeus work systema naturae 1735 (translated from latin to english)
from
https://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.19...umn-content/attachment/Linnaeus--extracts.pdf
You keep on making these errors that show you do not understand the theory that you are trying to argue against.
First off, what you claim is "micro-evolution" is macro-evolution. Speciation, which has been observed many times, is macro. Second the term "monkey" is not specific. It is not a proper biological term. The ancestor that we shared with monkeys is more properly considered a simian. And both monkeys and man are simians. Just as the ancestor that we share with chimpanzees was an ape. Both man and chimpanzees are apes. There has been no "change of kinds" in either case.
I could go back further. The ancestor that we share with cows was a mammal. Cows and man are mammals. The ancestor that we share with reptiles and amphibians was a tetrapod, men, reptiles and amphibians are tetrapods. No change in kind there either.
well you would be begging the question as to what macro evolution in fact is. While most scientists agree that speciation is at every level of evolution I have yet to see a true scientist, or a scientific article that claims that "speciation...is macro" evolution as you state here. Unless you would like to break the losing streak and quote a journal that supports the "speciation = macro evolution" theory.
all of the below do not state that speciation is macro, or that macro evolution is even at the level of species (taxonomically speaking).
again let me post this:
the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".
Evolution 101: Macroevolution
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"
also indiana university:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf
also some institutes of Biological Sciences:
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
national evolution sythesis center:
https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/
2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"
3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 7884. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library
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?