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.
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: 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
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).
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.
.
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.
.
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...
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.Wrong again dad. You are the one making a positive claim. .
"
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus
- monophyly all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together;
- reasonable compactness a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and
- 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)."
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.
Whatever are you talking about!!?? Chapter and verse?No, god in the bible also indicates the "strength and perfection" of the initial design and never suggests physics were altered at any point.
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.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.
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.How fast various creatures adapt is influenced by reproductive rate, mutation rate, environmental pressures...
Again, whoopee do for the present state and it's life process workings..not relevant.Which is why antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria can pop up within the matter of a year and yet giant pandas face extinction.
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 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.
.
Jesus says otherwise.God made no such claims. All you have is the Bible,
Don't pretend you have a bible case. Clouds without rain are your words.and you are misinterpreting that.
That is off topic. Jesus says His words are life and come from God. He validated Genesis also.If you remember you failed to show that the Bible is "God's word".
The issue is what science claims. Science really does use physics and the present as the key to the past. Deal with it.Once again, you are the making a positive claim.
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.
.
So you don't have chapter and verse after all for what you claimed. OK.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.
It was good. Then sin happened. He changed His opinion. That was why the flood happened.Ugh, god states how well it has done creating stuff multiple times in the bible, especially in Genesis in the early verses.
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.
False.Validating Genesis wouldn't equate to validating you.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
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.Nope, Jesus did not say anything outside of the Bible.
Yeah right. You keep forgetting how badly you failed with regards to the Tyre prophecy.
Like we need your opinion of what Jesus said??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?
Yes, it deals with an imaginary same state past and future. That is what it specializes in, Satanic delusions.I have dealt with it. Of course science does not deal in delusional states.
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?