EvC Forum: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

DC85

Member

Posts: 876

From: Richmond, Virginia USA

Joined: 05-06-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 36 of 205 (546038)
02-07-2010 7:02 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
02-06-2010 12:46 PM

Re: why use a wrong definition?

Micro evolution, changes that occur in species.

Macro evolution changes that occur above species.

so a lot of Micro evolution cannot lead to Macro evolution? This logic among creationist really confuses me...

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.

yeah because saying things are complex therefore they were designed isn't a far larger stretch then looking at transitions such as this....

Not to mention DNA similarities such as 98% of DNA shared with chimpanzees...

Evolution is crap it has no basis in reality. Assuming a creator created everything as a "full species" is not a stretch at all...

There is no first hand accounts. They can not be reproduced. They are not in a continual process today, therefore can not be observed.

We've seen plenty of them but you deny them by saying it's "micro evolution" even though you have yet to explain why a lot of "micro evolution' cannot lead to "macro evolution"

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 26 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2010 12:46 PM		ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 7:50 PM		DC85 has replied

DC85

Member

Posts: 876

From: Richmond, Virginia USA

Joined: 05-06-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 38 of 205 (546051)
02-07-2010 8:29 PM

Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
02-07-2010 7:50 PM

Re: Dinosaurs To Birds

You got that from one of my recent posts, didn't you? I should say that that in itself isn't a terribly good example of a transition as such, because in the picture (though not in the fossil record) there's such an enormous gap between Archaeopteryx and the modern bird. That's the whole point of the picture --- it's to show that Archaeopteryx is much more like a non-avian dinosaur than it is like any modern bird.

I did however to make such a short post I didn't have the will to look more in depth for images for a sarcastic post I shouldn't have done in the first place. laziness on my part

This message is a reply to:
	Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-07-2010 7:50 PM		Dr Adequate has not replied

DC85

Member

Posts: 876

From: Richmond, Virginia USA

Joined: 05-06-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 163 of 205 (548310)
02-26-2010 6:26 PM

Reply to: Message 162 by Dr Jack
02-26-2010 5:41 PM

Re: why use ANY wrong definition?

I thought microevolution produced speciation.

Yes, that's correct: microevolution produces speciation, speciation is macroevolution.

which means there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution just evolution

This message is a reply to:
	Message 162 by Dr Jack, posted 02-26-2010 5:41 PM		Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 166 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:25 AM		DC85 has replied

DC85

Member

Posts: 876

From: Richmond, Virginia USA

Joined: 05-06-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 164 of 205 (548311)
02-26-2010 6:43 PM

Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
02-26-2010 12:20 PM

Re: why use ANY wrong definition?

Any changes in these two species is microevolution. Is it not?

since there is no such thing as microevolution I have no choice but to say no

How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation

make it simple for you a lot of micro makes macro

That would small changes over a long period. That's just evolution.

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.

of course there is the small changes you're calling "microevolution" and the fact we have different closely related species. PLEASE explain what stops these small changes in a secluded population from adding up and becoming a another species. Does God say one day "ok that's enough" ?

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.

Just like Creationism?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 159 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:20 PM		ICANT has not replied

DC85

Member

Posts: 876

From: Richmond, Virginia USA

Joined: 05-06-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 168 of 205 (548394)
02-27-2010 10:45 AM

Reply to: Message 166 by Dr Jack
02-27-2010 4:25 AM

Re: why use ANY wrong definition?

Only if there's also no such thing as an inch and a mile only distance.

last I checked the the words were only used by creationists. They aren't units of measuring anything and have no use as words in science. Something can't "macroevolve" It evolves.

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 166 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:25 AM		Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 169 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2010 12:00 PM	DC85 has replied
	Message 170 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 12:23 PM	DC85 has not replied

DC85

Member

Posts: 876

From: Richmond, Virginia USA

Joined: 05-06-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 171 of 205 (548400)
02-27-2010 12:30 PM

Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
02-27-2010 12:00 PM

I stand corrected

I stand corrected however I still really don't see the need to differentiate. It would be the same thing. I see the "definition" but don't see the real need for the word as one describes the other. It's not like a unit of measurement

This message is a reply to:
	Message 169 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2010 12:00 PM		RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 172 by xongsmith, posted 02-27-2010 1:14 PM	DC85 has replied
	Message 174 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:07 PM	DC85 has not replied

DC85

Member

Posts: 876

From: Richmond, Virginia USA

Joined: 05-06-2003

Normal Thread Display

Message 173 of 205 (548406)
02-27-2010 1:23 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by xongsmith
02-27-2010 1:14 PM

Re: I stand corrected

Right, as in 1 mile = 63,360 inches every time.

Indeed 10 million micros may or may not equal a macro. It is even possible for 1 micro to be the difference and thus make a macro. Perhaps, like the straw on the camel's back, every macro was precipitated by the last micro in a chain of micros that eventually became too much to hold together.

But an inch will never be a mile, unless it's an inch given to a congressman about to embark on a filibuster.

I just figure speciation and evolution were sufficient to describe what's needed but I'm nitpicking and swaying the topic

This message is a reply to:
	Message 172 by xongsmith, posted 02-27-2010 1:14 PM		xongsmith has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	PaulK, Phat
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1