Why Evolution is True (2)

[PsychoSarah]

so many here think however there is a scientific article that says otherwise:

"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: 78–84. 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


again, macro evolution as defined by the majority of scientists and universities is evolution "above the level of species", that is in it's most straight forward interpretation, to be a higher level of taxa, not more taxa (or speciation at the level of the species taxa).

You need to read your source closer, it isn't arguing for any definition or difference between macro and micro evolution, it is just summing up some of the arguments about it for both those who supported a distinction and those that didn't.

 

[dad]

Please dad, no breaking of the Ninth commandment. If you cannot show that the evidence is "sullied" you just said a lie about the people that discovered it.

You need to show evidence for your past state. Without any evidence that supports it all you have is a delusion.

Unless science can prove that our laws and state existed, they are sullying evidence with the belief that it was the same.

God indicates it was not. Period.


.

 

[Subduction Zone]

gradyll, of your first three articles only the first one claims that macroevolution is specifically above the species level. The second one does not give a definition, though it gives a couple of examples of what it thinks of as micro evolution and the third article is about evolution above the species level which it automatically called "macro" it does not say that evolution at the species level is not macro evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Unless science can prove that our laws and state existed, they are sullying evidence with the belief that it was the same.

God indicates it was not. Period.


.

No, god in the bible also indicates the "strength and perfection" of the initial design and never suggests physics were altered at any point. You can argue day and night all you like that your idea is the only way a literal biblical interpretation can be true, but to state that the bible or any deity suggests that physics were changed as you claim is an outright lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless science can prove that our laws and state existed, they are sullying evidence with the belief that it was the same.

God indicates it was not. Period.


.

Wrong again dad. You are the one making a positive claim. That of a change of state in the past. The burden of proof is upon you.


Without evidence all you have is a delusional state.

 

[dad]

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...

"
The composition of a genus is determined by a taxonomist. The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera.There are some general practices used, however,[1] including the idea that a newly defined genus should fulfill these three criteria to be descriptively useful:

1. monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together;
2. reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and
3. distinctness – in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow (e.g. postzygotic barriers)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus


If a creature in the far past had different conditions to live under, and could adapt quickly to them, unlike today, then it is no wonder different 'authorities' come up with different things. If a creature could evolve and adapt while alive, then the stuff about 'descendants of an ancestral taxon' lose meaning. The word genus then, is reduced to an opinion of someone in this present time, who bases all of their ideas on assuming things were always more or less the same as they are now in the way of how life adapts.

 

[dad]

Wrong again dad. You are the one making a positive claim. .

I am accepting God's claim, especially in the clear and demonstrated ignorance of what laws existed that science exhibits. You demonstrate this. The issue is not whether you like it or lump it, but whether you can prove the same state past science bases all past models on. Nothing else matters, so save your breath.


.

 

[PsychoSarah]

"
The composition of a genus is determined by a taxonomist. The standards for genus classification are not strictly codified, so different authorities often produce different classifications for genera.There are some general practices used, however,[1] including the idea that a newly defined genus should fulfill these three criteria to be descriptively useful:

1. monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together;
2. reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and
3. distinctness – in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow (e.g. postzygotic barriers)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus


If a creature in the far past had different conditions to live under, and could adapt quickly to them, unlike today, then it is no wonder different 'authorities' come up with different things. If a creature could evolve and adapt while alive, then the stuff about 'descendants of an ancestral taxon' lose meaning. The word genus then, is reduced to an opinion of someone in this present time, who bases all of their ideas on assuming things were always more or less the same as they are now in the way of how life adapts.

How fast various creatures adapt is influenced by reproductive rate, mutation rate, environmental pressures... Which is why antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria can pop up within the matter of a year and yet giant pandas face extinction.

 

[dad]

No, god in the bible also indicates the "strength and perfection" of the initial design and never suggests physics were altered at any point.

Whatever are you talking about!!?? Chapter and verse?

You can argue day and night all you like that your idea is the only way a literal biblical interpretation can be true, but to state that the bible or any deity suggests that physics were changed as you claim is an outright lie.

I wait for someone to show an idea that leaves the flood and creation, and Genesis true, as well as agree with science. I have one. I see no others. I am open minded, should you find any let us know.

.

 

[dad]

How fast various creatures adapt is influenced by reproductive rate, mutation rate, environmental pressures...

Thanks for the present state update. We know that though, most here, I suspect. The issue is how genetics worked in the former state? Were there mutations? What would you know about the former state reproductive rates?? The main issue regarding the evolution in the former state is...well the former state! It doesn't matter how things evolve here.

Which is why antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria can pop up within the matter of a year and yet giant pandas face extinction.

Again, whoopee do for the present state and it's life process workings..not relevant.


.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Whatever are you talking about!!?? Chapter and verse?

I wait for someone to show an idea that leaves the flood and creation, and Genesis true, as well as agree with science. I have one. I see no others. I am open minded, should you find any let us know.

.

I wait on you for a biblical verse that suggests that physics will change or has already changed prior to literally the last few years humanity is supposed to exist. I don't see the return of Jesus right now, so you can't argue that the change in physics just happened, and that isn't really your position anyways.

Ugh, god states how well it has done creating stuff multiple times in the bible, especially in Genesis in the early verses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am accepting God's claim, especially in the clear and demonstrated ignorance of what laws existed that science exhibits. You demonstrate this. The issue is not whether you like it or lump it, but whether you can prove the same state past science bases all past models on. Nothing else matters, so save your breath.


.

God made no such claims. All you have is the Bible, and you are misinterpreting that. If you remember you failed to show that the Bible is "God's word".

Once again, you are the making a positive claim. The burden of proof is upon you.

 

[dad]

God made no such claims. All you have is the Bible,

Jesus says otherwise.

and you are misinterpreting that.

Don't pretend you have a bible case. Clouds without rain are your words.

If you remember you failed to show that the Bible is "God's word".

That is off topic. Jesus says His words are life and come from God. He validated Genesis also.

Once again, you are the making a positive claim.

The issue is what science claims. Science really does use physics and the present as the key to the past. Deal with it.


.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Jesus says otherwise.


Don't pretend you have a bible case. Clouds without rain are your words.


That is off topic. Jesus says His words are life and come from God. He validated Genesis also.
The issue is what science claims. Science really does use physics and the present as the key to the past. Deal with it.


.

Jesus never says god already had changed physics, especially not in the way you claim.

You are the one with no bible case, not one bit of the bible actually in and of itself implies different physics. It suggests miracles.

Validating Genesis wouldn't equate to validating you.

 

[dad]

I wait on you for a biblical verse that suggests that physics will change or has already changed prior to literally the last few years humanity is supposed to exist.

So you don't have chapter and verse after all for what you claimed. OK.

Will you start by admitting the the future in the bible is different? Yes or no?

I don't see the return of Jesus right now, so you can't argue that the change in physics just happened, and that isn't really your position anyways.

We can compare the three states...future, present and far past in the bible! One sticks out as different...this present state one!! Yet this is the one science has used to fabricate godless models of the far past! Talk about diabolical!

Ugh, god states how well it has done creating stuff multiple times in the bible, especially in Genesis in the early verses.

It was good. Then sin happened. He changed His opinion. That was why the flood happened.


.

 

[dad]

Jesus never says god already had changed physics, especially not in the way you claim.

Jesus did validate that Moses was to be believed. Guess who wrote Genesis? His disciple was John, who wrote Revelation. The future and past recorded in the bible are sealed as true by Jesus.

You are the one with no bible case, not one bit of the bible actually in and of itself implies different physics. It suggests miracles.

Look at the future in the bible. Will you admit it is different?

Validating Genesis wouldn't equate to validating you.

False.


.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus says otherwise.

Nope, Jesus did not say anything outside of the Bible.

Don't pretend you have a bible case. Clouds without rain are your words.

Yeah right. You keep forgetting how badly you failed with regards to the Tyre prophecy.

That is off topic. Jesus says His words are life and come from God. He validated Genesis also.

No, he didn't. Even if he was who you think he was he constantly taught in parables, allegory, and other indirect teaching methods. The people of his time were having a hard enough time getting his message when couched in terms they could understand. What chance would he had if he told the whole truth?

The issue is what science claims. Science really does use physics and the present as the key to the past. Deal with it.

.

I have dealt with it. Of course science does not deal in delusional states. It is your claim you have to show evidence for it.

Do we see any?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So you don't have chapter and verse after all for what you claimed. OK.

Will you start by admitting the the future in the bible is different? Yes or no?

We can compare the three states...future, present and far past in the bible! One sticks out as different...this present state one!! Yet this is the one science has used to fabricate godless models of the far past! Talk about diabolical!
It was good. Then sin happened. He changed His opinion. That was why the flood happened.


.

God makes so many comments on how it is the creator that I don't want to list them all, but if you had read the bible yourself you should know about them, and it makes me think you don't read the bible much if you aren't aware of those verses.

Science in general takes no position on deities as per lack of any evidence to work with and lack of ability to test.

I know that passages about the end times suggest differences, but your personal timeline doesn't align with that

 

[PsychoSarah]

Jesus did validate that Moses was to be believed. Guess who wrote Genesis? His disciple was John, who wrote Revelation. The future and past recorded in the bible are sealed as true by Jesus.



Look at the future in the bible. Will you admit it is different?
False.


.

God complex much? You are not the bible, and you are not Jesus, you have no right to claim your personal biblical interpretation is flawless. You are no prophet. How dare you suggest such a thing?

 

[dad]

Nope, Jesus did not say anything outside of the Bible.

Yes He did. The world could not contain the books He said and did. The bible is the record He dictated and has sent to man that He wanted us to have.

Yeah right. You keep forgetting how badly you failed with regards to the Tyre prophecy.

Lurkers...this is not a honest point, he was crushed on this.

No, he didn't. Even if he was who you think he was he constantly taught in parables, allegory, and other indirect teaching methods. The people of his time were having a hard enough time getting his message when couched in terms they could understand. What chance would he had if he told the whole truth?

Like we need your opinion of what Jesus said??

I have dealt with it. Of course science does not deal in delusional states.

Yes, it deals with an imaginary same state past and future. That is what it specializes in, Satanic delusions.

.