Why Evolution is True

[Loudmouth]

like I said it's the difference between micro and macro evolution.

That difference is speciation. Speciation is macroevolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

like I said it's the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro typically is within a population. there are many populations with the primate category. Just google the definition of Micro evolution, it will pop up.

Um, all evolution is on the scale of the population

 

[createdtoworship]

Quite the opposite. You refuse to accept the definitions of micro and macro evolution that the courts use. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species. Therefore, the production of a new species is macroevolution. We have directly observed the process of speciation, so we have observed macroevolution.

well 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

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"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/aiob-3aa083106.php

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

want more?

 

[Loudmouth]

well 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". Some sites just define it as "evolution on a grand scale".

The definition is "at or above the level of species".

Like I said, people have defined it. You just refuse to accept it.

 

[lost999]

Quite the opposite. You refuse to accept the definitions of micro and macro evolution that the courts use. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species. Therefore, the production of a new species is macroevolution. We have directly observed the process of speciation, so we have observed macroevolution.

Semantics at there best. If you want something to fit, just redefine it.

It's like when we define nothing as something. These debates are the epitome of ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPlTsWFYBIM

Not trying to get under your skin. Personally, I could care less if we evolved or were somehow spontaneously created. It's a pointless debate.

Redefining words kind of irks me though.

 

[sfs]

I'll be more specific: why are you trying to tell me how to do my job?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is a kind?

Kind = Genus

 

[Loudmouth]

Kind = Genus

Then you have admitted that "kind" is an arbitrary line. There is absolutely nothing stopping us from putting humans and chimps in the same genus. In fact, some scientists have suggested we do just that:

"This functional DNA evidence supports two previously offered taxonomic proposals: family Hominidae should include all extant apes; and genus Homo should include three extant species and two subgenera, Homo (Homo) sapiens (humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common chimpanzee), and Homo (Pan) paniscus (bonobo chimpanzee)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/12/7181.full

 

[AV1611VET]

The word "prove" is used differently in different contexts. In mathematics, we accept certain axioms, and then derive by formal logic other consequences and say the results are proven. But they are only proven if one first accepts the axioms.

If one is willing to deny axioms, then one can never prove anything. In that sense, nothing will ever be proven.

In law, we seek to prove the accused is guilty. Proof here is not of the certainty level of mathematics. The judge will instruct the jury to merely achieve the level of certainty used in making common life decisions.

When you see the pronouncement that something cannot ever be proven completely in science, it is the mathematical certainty type of proof that is being talked about.

When you see someone say this or that has been scientifically proven, it is the other kind of proof, the level of certainty used in making common life decisions, that is being talked about.

Both ways of talking about things are valid. Some people like to play word games and play one definition of "proof" against the other and try to confuse things, to keep the other side from making their points.

Such word games don't change the facts.

Evolution has been proven to be true. You should be able to figure out, now, in what sense I mean that.

Okay, thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is absolutely nothing stopping us from putting humans and chimps in the same genus.http://www.pnas.org/content/100/12/7181.full

Go right ahead.

I don't have to accept it, however.

 

[CabVet]

Kind = Genus

Now we know, all that will take for creationists to accept evolution is to put humans and chimps in the same genus. Who would have thought?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now we know, all that will take for creationists to accept evolution is to put humans and chimps in the same genus.

Not this creationist.

 

[CabVet]

Not this creationist.

Of course not, goalposts are there to be moved. And that's exactly what "kind" is. An arbitrary category that can be changed at will if "proof" is found that evolution happened.

 

[Loudmouth]

Go right ahead.

I don't have to accept it, however.

Then kind is not the same as genus.

Try again. Define "kind".

 

[Loudmouth]

Not this creationist.

Then kind does not equal genus.

Please define "kind".

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not, goalposts are there to be moved. And that's exactly what "kind" is. An arbitrary category that can be changed at will if "proof" is found that evolution happened.

I was asked what a "kind" is, and I said "genus."

If you have a better definition, I'm all eyes.

And for the record, God's taxonomy is not the same as Linnaeus' taxonomy.

Far from it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then kind is not the same as genus.

You got a better definition?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You got a better definition?

The point is, there is no creationist acceptable definition of "kind".

Your intention is that a "kind" be a group of species that cannot evolve into something very different from what they already are.

To actually define "kind", then, you would have to identify the barrier to further evolution. You would have to define what you mean by "very different" as opposed to "slightly different". No creationist has ever succeeded in doing that.

Since there is no barrier to further evolution, your quest is hopeless.

whatever you attempt to use as a definition, if it is a clear and rigorous definition, it will be shown as making no sense. For example, you deplore using "genus" as defined by scientists, because that puts your definition at risk of putting humans in the same "kind" as chimpanzees.

If it is not a clear and rigorous definition, that fact will be pointed out to you and you will be asked again.

 

[dad]

The point is, there is no creationist acceptable definition of "kind".
...

Yes there are. Plenty. You just have a wonky conception of what is acceptable. A kind was the first created creature. Don't blame us if science is unable to determine stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is not a clear and rigorous definition, that fact will be pointed out to you and you will be asked again.

Kind = Genus ... but by God's standards, not mans'.

What genus would you classify the angels?