Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge

I would say the problem with your, "challenge" is that it is much less of a challenge to take two primates with a very similar body plan and say, "show me how it can't be micro".That seems conceivable to me at least physically for making a biped from an arboreal ape but how would that justify goo-to-you via the zoo? So then evolution claims more than to have just evolved a primate into a primate doesn't it.Perhaps conceivable but would those changes really add up to a human? You show a portion of similar code in a gene, but that is as a logical error of taking a portion already similar, very close then saying "now these two small changes, what would prevent them?"That's a lot easier to do than to compare very dissimilar parts of the genome and then ask the same question. (cherry-picking by picking the similar codes.) Question - how much dissimilar code can you copy for us to look at? (That's the question mikey Holmes is asking!)So for me I would say that the burden of proof isn't upon me to prove micro evolution is an omniscient designer that can come up with the Bombardier beetle, anemone-dart eating sea slugs, Archer fish or humans. I would say the true burden of proof is upon those saying that micro evolution, given enough time, will lead to man from molecules.For example if a bacteria becomes resistant, or a fish gets anti-freeze, or a beak is slightly tougher and larger, or a lizard's toe pad slightly differently shaped, does that mean that if we add up those changes they will lead from molecules to man? If they do, you should be able to show a sequential pattern in the micro changes. The micro changes happening today, should give us clues to the direction of the changes in the anatomy that will be new anatomies in the future. I have news for you, the anatomies aren't changing their design significantly. To say "we don't have enough time to see them change" would be to presume they are all on day one of changing. Shouldn't various organisms be at different stages of evolution?For me that's akin to saying that if we watch a man accelerate when he runs, from 1mph to 3mph then if we had watched him go the full distance of a mile, by this simple micro change in speed, he would end up running at 300mph.The problem with that reasoning is that on the MACRO level there are changes that don't have to occur on the MICRO level. For example, all of a planes parts individually, can not fly on the micro level. So then does that mean we can conclude that all the parts together on the macro level, will mean a non-flying plane?In the same way, how does altering the shape of a lizard's toe pad count as part of an anatomical overhaul on the macro level? How does a larger bellows type lung on the micro level, lead to a contraflow lung on the macro level?On the micro level, there are anatomical designs of phenotype which don't have to be dealt with but on the macro level, those changes in design purportedly evolved from lots of micro.For me it's reasonable to then say, "then the micro will reveal this macro change" so then show me micro changes which are changing a contraflow lung into a different design of lung, a novel anatomy! The excuse will be; "evolution doesn't have to take a different direction." But then isn't that a tacit admission that micro changes don't have to lead anywhere? Because there are no designer changes on the anatomical level, occurring like they would be if evolution was true. All you see is insignificant changes which don't effect the design of the anatomy. A variety of bats yes, but can you show me one between quadruped and flier or one between flier and quadruped? No, so that's sufficient to conclude there is no macro evolution happening, IMHO.

Hi RAZD. Yes but I know how evolution purportedly, "works", in my new topic in the proposed section, I don't score as "ignorant" on those evolution tests, so let's not make it about understanding evolution.I wasn't making a point about evolution really, I was making a point about anatomy. For example let us say we have a lung of the bellows type like in humans (rather than the contraflow avian lung), can you see that micro evolution might mean that our lungs "evolve" because of selection pressure, for a demand for a better efficiency. A pretend scenario, of course. So I agree a micro evolution might be a larger lung or a slightly different lung but this has no affect on the anatomical changes that would be required to create that type of lung into a contraflow lung.So then when they say that micro evolution would have made that type of lung evolve into the bird's lung, that WOULD require an anatomical overhaul. As you know a bird's lung with the air sacs, etc, the very different way of breathing, is a totally different system.Now it's okay to hypothesize that evolution could have done it incrementally but logically to show it is happening incrementally is an entirely different thing. (This is where I say that obviously evolution doesn't require our lung to go from a bellows type to the other type, so as to reveal I am not ignorant of evolution. BUT, if you are claiming micro evolutionary changes basically are macro, then are our lungs or any feature, part of an intermediate transition which involves changing one system into another? If they aren't then all the micro changes like lizard toe pads and tougher beaks, logically AREN'T LEADING to a MACRO change). I appreciate they are close. I appreciate that to your mind it is plausible that one could evolve into the other. I myself don't believe there is a connection between pithecines and the homo genus. I believe what we see in nature is a smorgasboard of mosaic traits. You might call this an evolutionary, "bush". For me I just think it is design, the best designs being used for certain organisms.For me it's tautologous that there was always going to be other species we as humans would be "closest" to anatomically. This would still be true if there is no macro evolution, which is why it is tautologous, because mathematically, in a world of millions of species we are bound to be similar in some ways to some others. We are mammals yes, with a skeleton, but there is a reason for that is there not? For example, would we expect a butterfly to have bones?So all I am saying is that there is an alternative explanation. I appreciate you don't accept that explanation and are thoroughly convinced of evolution, and I appreciate that you expound that viewpoint with intelligence and clarity, and barely a fallacy in any of your arguments, generally speaking!Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Remember, I was attacking Taq's challenge. He himself hasn't argued the best argument by showing us a tiny portion of similar genome. How many base changes are there between a chimp and a human? It seems he was almost implying it was as simple as just two being needed.Surely you can see it at least logically fair to do a full comparison? I think therefore his challenge is either mendacious or sloppy thinking.Edited by mike the wiz, : missing words and spelling errors as usual, I have fast-typing disease.

Yes I would categorise primates as mammals with a collar bone, and forward pointing eyes. I don't agree with the classification of humans with apes obviously so I don't refer to apes. Really I only refer to the body plan.So I don't "admit" to anything consequential. Humans share two main anatomical similarities with apes compared to monkeys and apes which share nine.Apes and monkeys both have arms longer than legs for brachiation, can't speak have dense body hair, and no nasal spine. Humans are viably fully bipedal, monkeys and apes aren't. Humans have speech, apes and monkeys don't. Humans can understand a concept within a concept, apes and monkeys can't. Etc.. But as a skeletal plan, all are mammals with forward vision and a collar bone. That's about all that's shared.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Well, to be honest I don't accept these assertions as true claims. I think it's OVERT that humans stand out as made in God's image. The "special" claim is a term atheists love to hang on to but the main point with the bible is that it says we are made in God's image, and what is God? An intelligent, sentient Creator.Humans excel in that area. Imagination, creativity, and we have sentience, a full awareness of things such as logic, maths, we can discover science, understand abstract concepts.I think it's a superficial claim to only compare anatomy or only compare genetics because that presumes that the only difference between chimps and humans are differences in those areas. Nevertheless monkeys and apes share many things that humans don't share with them anyway, we speak, have sentient personas, can think abstractly, are fully bipedal, have the software for speech, don't have dense animal hair, etc.... Well, according to the bible all nephesh organisms are living souls. So really to "find out you don't have a soul" would be to find out you aren't a living being.So you've taken Hollywood's version of religion which describes a "soul", and applied that to creationists, but informed creationists know that a living soul includes the physical miracle of life. We argue that when the living soul dies the spirit which is supernatural, remains. To say we have "found out" this spirit isn't real, well - no, you have made a statement
based on argumentum ad ignorantiam, but personally I would not expect necessarily to find direct evidence of a supernatural spirit in some natural form after death since the bible doesn't say we linger as a soul with natural residues for science testing.It seems you are just making assertions and claims here which creationists wouldn't even agree with, which are predicated on things you only half understand. (Half might be a little generous).Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Well it's always rhetorical to compare apples to oranges then say apples are the same as oranges.The only thing we share with "flat earthers" is that we have arguments to the contrary of a popular claim.It's a generalisation fallacy to say "you're no different from a flat earther". Did you know the members of flat-earth society are evolutionist? At least some of them are. I have. Falsification evidence, using the modus tollens. But there is no point in explaining that because you wouldn't understand what I was talking about and would just argue that I haven't falsified it.As an exercise in logical debate, the ToE isn't that difficult to refute, what is difficult to really fight is all of the rhetorical devices you use, such as vaguely appealing to consensus. That's argumentum ad verecundiam because science doesn't operate by consensus, nor does it operate from proof, as Popper explained.So if you say "evolutionary scientists agree" evolution is true, that's a slightly better argument, because the majority of scientists aren't evolutionary biologists. So to appeal to the 70% or whatever it is, of scientists which aren't qualified to judge the matter, is an appeal to authority, so that's 70% of your claim dealt with.Then we ask, "are those evolutionary biologists experts in critical thinking and logic" because if they aren't it's still an appeal to authority, if they can't assess claims to an expert level.Thirdly we must ask, is it tautologous that, "all evolutionary scientists accept the ToE". Well to be honest I can't really picture too many passionate creationists being evolutionary biologists, I am going to bet that most people that want to become an evolutionary biologist, are already passionate about science.If they are passionate about science, does it follow they would want to explain the world using science? Yes. Is the only way to explain life naturall through science, evolution theory? Yes. So what are the chances they would NOT accept the ToE?Can't say they're too good, so in my book that evolutionists accept evolution, when you strip away the phlegm, just isn't the most convincing argument.

One of the greatest strengths of an MOT test is that it passes those brakes which are roadworthy, but does it therefore follow that all brakes tested are of equal performance? So then, don't be too confident in saying "this Skoda's brakes are just as good as this ferrari."Of course you suggest two things are mutually exclusive, science, and the weakness of the human mind. But human minds came up with science, so who is to say that science is reliable, based on your reasoning? For under your own logic that would mean science could somehow be imperfect because of those weaknesses.You would then argue the scientific method rids this weakness, but what if some things were not scientific, therefore the "weakness" was to assume they could be explained scientically? For example I could argue you divorced your wife for a mathematical reason even though it seemed obvious she wasn't faithful. Imagine then if I explain some complicated maths sum. That sum might be "correct", but logically that won't mean that the divorce was a matter of mathematics.Confirmation evidence isn't enough to change the belief God created the world, especially if that evidence is circumstantial and tenuous, like with argued transitionals which are later abandoned. For example they used to argue the mesonychids were whale ancestors (probably spelt that wrong) but now they tend to argue it's the artiodactyls.The point is - you can, "find" transitions like Rhodoectus, argue it had a tail fluke, then later on you can reject it.Now I am not arguing all these things here obviously, my only point is this; imagine ditching the belief God created the world because they found rhodocetus (evidence) only to later be told that this is now NOT evidence of whale evolution.The rest of your post is basically snide personal attacks. For example you said; "We know perfectly well that you take an anti-scientific attitude whenever science contradicts your beliefs". This is a deliberately devious comment only intended as propaganda.Try to deal with the claims people make instead of constantly referring to the person in some way. I know you yourself see it as terribly clever as a tactic, but others see it for what it is, which is transparent rhetoric. For why would someone "know perfectly well" something about themselves they wouldn't agree is true?That's such a rhetorical comment that begs the question.