Hi RAZD,
I hope you are doing well these days.
RAZD writes:
I'll try once again ...
Why?
RAZD writes:
You really need to read the whole paragraph.
I did read the whole paragraph.
But the problem is this.
As I look at the so called tree of life many of the limbs and branches are missing. There is no root that exist as we don't know what produced the first life form.
Thus there is no root defined.
There is no trunk defined.
People take the final life forms we see today and try to go backwards in time and connect them to one life form to prove evolution took place.
In a thread in the past you proposed to do that and then did not carry through. Maybe you would like to do that and see how far you can go.
RAZD writes:
When you zoom out on a tree from a single branch to see the whole tree, do you see any process that does not occur in the single branch being used in the formation of the tree? No,
As I said there are too many of the limbs and branches missing.
It kinda looks like this:
25 mya apes 195,000 tya homo sapiens
/ /
/ /
/ /
Common ancestor
\ \
\ \
\ \
15 mya monkey 545,000 tya chimpanzees
RAZD writes:
Personally I disagree with this opinion.
Then why not start with today and trace humans back to the original common ancestor above. Just remember there can be no gaps as when you get as far as you can go you are at a dead end.
Would you personally disagree with this statement? Paying particular attention to the part that is underlined.
Which is found in In
Message 167 you said to ABO:
RAZD writes:
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact. We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs, and HAS occurred in the past.
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. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated.
I have asked you this question in the past and you did not respond.
In
Message 72 you stated:
RAZD writes:
Can you point to any biology textbook or on-line biology source (such as Berkeley or U.Mich) that defines macroevolution this way?
Why would anyone today refer to macroevolution as transmutation?
Everyone here including you is trying to discard the word 'Macro-Evolution' and relegate it to being microevolution. Because changes to critters is a fact. 'Macro-Evolutiion' change above species is not a fact and neither is transmutation which is the word that was used in the 1800's to describe evolution above species.
But to answer your question I was refering to a article that ApostateAbe had presented as evidence. It is found
here.
and makes this statement:
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists--for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.
RAZD writes:
If you cannot find a single biologist that supports your definition of macroevolution then you are guilty of creationist misdefinition.
Do you disagree that Berkeley states:
quote:
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
My definition is that 'Macro-Evolution' is evolution above the species level.
RAZD writes:
Sorry, ICANT, but your "support" comes from old opinions that have been invalidated.
When was it invalidated that transmutation could not take place?
When was it validated that transmutation did take place?
You guys love the word mutation but when trans is placed in front of it then transmutation is a dirty word. Trans is across, on the other side, or beyond. So transmutation of a critter would be when that critter became a totally different critter.
It would not be like the 66 million year history where 330 different species of formafiera were produced that the final product was still a formafiera. Had a snail been produced as one of those species then that would be transmutation.
RAZD writes:
Why do creationists need to dredge up such old material if their opinions were correct?
A creationist did not dredge up such material it was presented by ApostateAbe to support his view.
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."
™ Version 4.2
