|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi RAZD,
Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at BerkeleyIt is not necessarily easy to see macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms. Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life. The basic evolutionary mechanismsmutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selectioncan produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument. And is the part that they can not accept as having happened. There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions. Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes: They cannot accept it based on religious belief, not empirical evidence. They don't accept it based on a lack of empirical evidence.
Coyote writes: They rely on belief. (You really should end all your posts with "Amen" or "Hallelujah," as what you are presenting us is nothing more than catechism and witnessing. Would you please point out which sentence is catechism and which is witnessing?
ICANT writes: Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument. And is the part that they can not accept as having happened. There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions. Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taz,
Taz writes: I never understood why creationists like to make such a distinction between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution. "Micro"evolution is a fact. "Macro"evolution is an assumption. It was not observed and no experiment can be run to reproduce the claimed results. Thus there is no empirical evidence.
Taz writes: Let's look at other things that have evolved through time. Have you ever seen a society macroevolve? Have you any evidence at all that a society macroevolved from sword fighting in the battlefield to fighter jets? You got a good example there if the sword evolved into the fighter jet. Instead of the jet being created by mankind. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Dr Adequate,
Dr Adequate writes: But it should not be included in their definition. Why not? It is a part of the process, isn't it? You can't get from a single cell life form to where we are today without it.
Dr Adequate writes: That is merely a historical fact about what evolution has brought about. Are you saying macroevolution is a fact? If so please present the empirical testable reproducable experiments that make it a fact. Otherwise it is an assumption. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi RAZD,
Hope you are doing well. My aim in Message 9 was to point out that creationists include macroevolution in any discussion of evolution. Also that macroevolution had no first hand accounts and anything that put forth is by assumption.
RAZD writes: "Micro"evolution is a fact. "Macro"evolution is an assumption. Can you please provide a definition of these? Short formMicro evolution, changes that occur in species. Macro evolution changes that occur above species.
RAZD writes: There is massive amounts of evidence of this type of change in the fossil record. You've seen it. Every transitional fossil is evidence of macroevolution - as the term is used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists. The only thing you observe in the fossil record is a complete species of a creature. Other than having some similarities to other species the only way you can say one came from the other is by assumption.There is no firsthand accounts. They can not be reproduced. They are not in a continual process today, therefore can not be observed. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes: We've discussed We have discussed many things, including the present subject. So I have a question since I was apparantly alseep when the announcement was made. When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes: We have, and as I recall, you define macroevolution as something that does not occur, but I'd like you to verify that. This is why I've asked for clarification of your last statements: Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation. I have said and continue to say this has never been observed to happen. There is no first hand accounts. It can not be reproduced. Therefore my conclusion it never happened.
RAZD writes: So I'll be looking for that definition. I don't have a definition that I have not read here or on a site that was referenced here.
RAZD writes: When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? Feel free to start a thread on this, but it is off topic here. This thread is not about validating evolution, but about how and why creationists get wrong. I beg to disagree. The question I asked is about macro evolution. You made this statement in another thread that:
RAZD writes: This can be found here. Message 167 When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. That was written 06-04-2007 7:23 AM . So I asked the question again. When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated? If it has not been validated yet then you can not claim macro evolution has happened. The only thing you can say is "I believe it happened because micro evolution occurs". God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi RAZD,
Quoting Berkeley:
RAZD writes: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. ABE to correct quote from Berkeley.
quote: That looks a lot like my definition of macro evolution.
RAZD writes: Once more, if you disagree with this, then you need to define the basis for your disagreement, You did an awful lot of explaining trying to convince somebody that macro evolution has been validated. Without addressing my question.
RAZD writes: This can be found here. Message 167 When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. When was macro evolution validated? Whether you answer or not this is my last post here. I am satisfied it has not been validated or you would have already confirmed that it had. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : No reason given. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi pandion,
I could not resist this one. You said:
pandion writes: These are speciation events (macro-evolution) in progress. Berekely says: "Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation" ABE to correct quote from Berkeley.
quote: So, how can a speciation event be macro evolution when macro evolution is the changes above speciation? God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : correction for quote "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
Sorry it took so long to get back to this as I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer and her family. So to clear up things here is the complete definition of micro and macro evolution according to Berekely.
quote: God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percey,
Percey writes: ("Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation") was in error. I realize I left out the word generally. (generally=usually as a rule) Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution. In the second paragraph of the definition it says:
quote: So it does not refer evolution at the species level. Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution? In the third paragraph it says:
quote: There are no firsthand accounts of macroevolutionary history. There are firsthand accounts of microevolutionary history. In paragraph 4 it says:
quote: There is no firsthand evidence so we have to figure it out in our little finite minds what has taken place. Then in our little finite minds we have to figure out how it happened. In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes: When speciation occurs the product is 2 closely related individual species, this therefore is the evolution of groups larger than 1 individual species, QED. When we have speciation we have two species. Just as in my avatar, there are two species of horses as they are not breeding populations. Now we have two species. Any changes in these two species is microevolution. Is it not? How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation?
Wounded King writes: If you look at the very next page from Berkeley 'Patterns', you will see that it includes speciation as one of the 4 patterns of macroevolution. I am not disputing that speciation does not happen. It does. I am disputing that macroevolution has taken place. There is no firsthand evidence for such an event. It only happened in the minds of men as they figured out what they thought happened and then figured out how they thought it happened. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
I don't know that anyone can explain anything to you. You get an idea in your head, you dig in your heels, and that's about the end of it no matter what the facts are. Look at it this way. If your interpretation is correct then speciation is neither microevolution or macroevolution. Now how much sense would that make? I thought microevolution produced speciation. Is that correct? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes: It isn't, it is the evolution of groups larger than a single species. When your two horses are sufficiently reproductively isolated as to be considered distinct species then your original group of 1 species has become a group of 2 species and is therefore a group larger than a single species. Which one of my horses is not a horse? Would it be the 57 pound mare or the 2300 pound Stallion? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024