Along with the link that an interested person would follow for questions like yours. You do realize that it looks like you are trying to use semantics rather than actually look at the science. As was noted in the excerpt from the link Arnold and Palmer were doing the classifications. If you want to know how they did it then you need to ask them. Here's more:
quote: As he speaks, Arnold shows a series of microphotographs, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foram species. "This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," he says. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."
By studying forams, Tony Arnold (front) and Bill Parker assembled many evolutionary sequences with virtually no missing links.
About 330 species of living and extinct planktonic forams have been classified so far. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.
Do you see anything in there about them asking me how to do it? They were at Florida State University at the time -- contact them. If you dare.
... Since you're not willing to back it up I'll just assume we can neglect this as relevant to the discussion.
So you'll use any excuse to dodge the issue. Typical creationist, never follow the information.
Hmmm. Time for my nap.
You've been sleeping a long time dreaming a fantasy, maybe it's time to wake up to reality.
I really am getting tired of doing homework for creationists, especially when you don't read to learn but to cherry-pick one aspect and think that somehow refutes the whole work. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way.
... Nowhere does it say what criteria they used to say when speciation had occurred. What it did say was that it started with a single celled organism and ended with a single celled organism. ...
Let's explore this in a little more depth. What it also said was that they observed hundreds of speciation events ...
quote:"We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," says Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time.
and in case you missed it in Evolution 101, speciation is the development of two or more species from a parent species. Not only is speciation observed here, and thus is a fact, the process of speciation forms a clade and thus this is biological macroevolution occurring.
Ah, you'll likely quip "they're single cell critters and single cell critters reproduce asexually so how do you determine speciation with the biological species definition?" but again you will be operating on incomplete information, as Wiki points out:
quote: ... The foraminiferal life-cycle involves an alternation between haploid and diploid generations, although they are mostly similar in form.[9][21] The haploid or gamont initially has a single nucleus, and divides to produce numerous gametes, which typically have two flagella. The diploid or schizont is multinucleate, and after meiosis fragments to produce new gamonts. Multiple rounds of asexual reproduction between sexual generations is not uncommon in benthic forms ...
This gives them the advantage to produce several generations of clones (only modified by mutations) and the advantage of sexual recombination to develop more individuals successful at survival and reproduction in a shorter time frame, and also incidentally to undergo speciation with the biological species definition.
Again, referring to evolution 101 on the types of speciation:
quote:If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.
If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.
An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.
This phyletic change (anagenesis) is seen in the foraminifera photo in the article:
... What it did say was that it started with a single celled organism and ended with a single celled organism. ...
Are you seriously going to suggest that all single cell organisms (plant or animal) are of one species because they are all single cell organisms? Really?
... The only apparent difference was the shape of the shell. Micro or macro? Maybe, maybe not.
And actually, both. As explained above.
Why don't you ask Tony Arnold "Ask Tony Arnold about an antique mandolin or an Afghanistani saddle-bag and the stories begin. The soft-spoken, former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at FSU will gently lead you through a two-minute course in history, politics, geography and the finer points of sheep wool." USA TODAY
Please don't stoop to the level of Davidjay in posting ridiculous non-sequitur silliness.
Now go take another nap and cogitate on the information you have received gratis, and maybe some of it will sink in.
and in case you missed it, you've just contradicted yourself since phyletic speciation does not result in two or more species from a parent species.
Again you are cherry picking statements and ignoring others. Did this just disappear because you ignored it?
quote:(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
Looking at each branch and ignoring the other you will see anagenesis -- the process of evolution occurring in each generation -- but what you will be missing is that the anagenesis in each branch will be different after the split, different selection of different mutations.
The foraminiferal life-cycle involves an alternation between haploid and diploid generations
You might have to educate me on this. As far as I can tell the diploid generation has a Multinucleated cell and doesn't involve sexual reproduction with another foram.
Conveniently ignoring the haploid generations? Forams, like many species (mosses for example) alternate sexual and asexual reproduction. You don't have sperm and egg sex, but haploid duplicates the nucleus then divides into two gamets which then combine with other gametes to produce a diploid cell.
quote:The foraminiferal life-cycle involves an alternation between haploid and diploid generations, although they are mostly similar in form.[9][21] The haploid or gamont initially has a single nucleus, and divides to produce numerous gametes, which typically have two flagella. ...
quote:A gamete (from Ancient Greek γαμετή gamete from gamein "to marry"[1]) is a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell during fertilization (conception) in organisms that sexually reproduce. ... In contrast, isogamy is the state of gametes from both sexes being the same size and shape, ...
quote:Isogamy is a form of sexual reproduction that involves gametes of similar morphology (similar shape and size), differing in general only in allele expression in one or more mating-type regions. Because both gametes look alike, they cannot be classified as "male" or "female." Instead, organisms undergoing isogamy are said to have different mating types, most commonly noted as "+" and "−" strains, although in some species of Basidiomycota there are more than two mating types (designated by numbers or letters). In all cases, fertilization occurs when gametes of two different mating types fuse to form a zygote.
quote:A zygote... is an eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. ... In single-celled organisms, the zygote can divide asexually by mitosis to produce identical offspring.
That wasn't too hard was it?
I agree with you that "phyletic change (anagenesis) is seen in the foraminifera photo in the article." If anagenesis was all that occurred, then the entire series would be one species; as you said in your definition of anagenesis, and you haven't shown that divergent speciation has occurred.
And yet it is stated in the article that it was observed hundred of times.
I told you where to find Tony Arnold, former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at FSU, so you could contact him for clarification if you wanted. I have sent an email to Dr Parker and I'll let you know if I get a response; ...
Apologies, I thought you were funnin' me by posting some arbitrary Tony Arnold found on the web. Please let me know if you get a response from Dr Parker.
But if you want examples of speciation there are many more. We can always bring in Pelycodus again.
The "foram" subphylum and speciation and Pelycodus
You don't have sperm and egg sex, but haploid duplicates the nucleus then divides into two gamets which then combine with other gametes to produce a diploid cell.
Thanks for explaining that.
You're welcome. This is another example of sex for Jar's thread, although it is about as asexual as sex can get.
Yes bring in Pelycodus again. As I showed before the difference between dogs of the SAME species is greater than the difference in the two varieties in the Pelycodus example. ...
Indeed, so here is the article and image again for reference:
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.
... Even if it is speciation it does not show whether this was due to microevolution or macroevolution. ...
It is due to microevolution -- ALL evolution is due to microevolution. The difference between micro and macro is like the difference in looking at the same object with a microscope and a macroscope: with the microscope you can see individual fine details but not the whole object, with the macroscope you can see how all those details come together in a picture of the whole object.
This is why I say when you look at one branch (Notharctus nunienus for example) and trace it backwards to Pelycodus ralstoni you will see anagenesis, and when you look at the other branch ( Notharctus venticolus) and trace it back to Pelycodus ralstoni you will also see anagenesis. Both of them include Pelycodus jarrovii as a common ancestor population.
It is only when you see them dividing that you see cladogenesis. This is what Arnold and Parker would have seen in the foram record -- two lines of descent from a single common ancestor species.
It would be nice to have a picture of that, but unfortunately that is not provided. Maybe you email to Dr Parker can elicit this information.
macroevolution = large evolutionary change, usually in morphology, typically refers to evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their plaecment in different genera or higher-level taxa
The trouble I have with this is following the path of lineage, we have a breeding population that becomes a variety, then it becomes a species when the varieties are reproductively isolated, then it becomes a genus after daughter populations go through the variety\species category transition, and it becomes a family as the descendants continue to evolve varieties and species and genera ... etc etc etc ...
... but that first breeding population is not evolving, their descendants are, and often the clade founding population is extinct when it becomes a "family" or higher category.
It's just names, not a new mechanism or process of evolution. Species don't get placed in higher categories via their evolution, but through the production of descendants that produce descendants, etc, etc, etc.
That's why I prefer the definition of macroevolution as anagenesis and cladogenesis, evolution over many generations until the descendant population/s are deemed different enough from the parent population to be placed in a new species or multiple species.
Outline of Biblical Usage: kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool. This does not preclude new species because this represents apartitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost orconservednot gained. A new species could arise when apopulation is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition anew species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of anexisting "kind".
Curiously I have felt that the way "kind" is used is most similar to "clades" rather than trying to use species and other taxonomic levels (which are becoming less useful as more speciation occurs -- and then "species" become "genus" becomes "family" ... ) -- new species are always members of the parent clade.
quote:A Clade (from Ancient Greek: κλάδος, klados, "branch") is a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1]
The common ancestor may be an individual, a population, a species (extinct or extant), and so on right up to a kingdom. Clades are nested, one in another, as each branch in turn splits into smaller branches. These splits reflect evolutionary history as populations diverged and evolved independently. Clades are termed monophyletic (Greek: "one clan") groups.
Over the last few decades, the cladistic approach has revolutionized biological classification and revealed surprising evolutionary relationships among organisms.[2] Increasingly, taxonomists try to avoid naming taxa that are not clades; that is, taxa that are not monophyletic.
Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group, showing the last common ancestor of the composite tree, which is the vertical line 'trunk' (stem) at the bottom, with all descendant branches shown above. The blue and red subgroups (at left and right) are clades, or monophyletic (complete) groups; each shows its common ancestor 'stem' at the bottom of the subgroup 'branch'. The green subgroup is not a clade; it is a paraphyletic group, which is incomplete here because it excludes the blue branch even though it is also descended from the common ancestor stem at the bottom of the green branch. The green subgroup together with the blue one forms a clade again.
What? Where did you get that from? I presume you're reading the word "ancestral" or "groups of living organisms;" from the religion of evolutionist? I just read those from the neutral perspective, that it is referencing only human ancestry. I do try minimally to be neutral prior to picking a side.
ummm ... what's the "religion of evolutionist?"
... I just read those from the neutral perspective ... I do try minimally to be neutral prior to picking a side.
You may think you are but, methinks, your bias betrays you.
How would you draw a cladogram of chimps and humans?
Disagree all you want--you presented a definition of "kind" which, if followed, includes all primates within the same kind. If you don't like that, get a better definition.
What I see coyote saying is that creationist try to make the blue block(humans) a separate clade from the green block above (chimps and other apes) when science shows they are all one clade.
I disagree with you. Science is a tool. Science does not endorse anti creationism. The evolutionist religion endorses anti creationism. ...
So much for presumed neutrality. Science is a tool that can be used to uncover reality, and like all tools it can be misused and mishandled. Much of creationism is full of the misuse and mishandling of science, often outright lies and misinformation. The goal in science is to explain all the evidence, not just that which fits inside your personal bubble of "convenient truths."
Science is agnostic to religion and there is no "evolutionist religion" ... and it always amuses me when creationists try to insult evolution by calling it a religion.
Further Science can only do so much in finding reality, it can only study what is observed.
Don't get me incorrect, I love Science but it has extreme limits. And real Science is actually observing, like the eclipse coming up.
So all pretense of neutrality is now dropped and you've moved into full preacher mode. Another one.
... Further Science is not in the business of finding God. ...
Correct, it doesn't study what cannot be tested.
... Science has not been used to show new kinds from different kinds. ...
And, curiously, it never will ... because evolution does not work that way. It seems only creationists, in general, and YECists in particular, seem to make this argument from ignorance.
The way you defined "kind" in Message 396 is essentially the same as a clade (see my Message 615). Evolution says that descendant of any organism in a clade is still a member of that clade, no matter how much or how little it is changed/evolved since the parent organism/s.
... Thus it is not in contradiction to creationism. ...
Until you look at the details, like the fact that all organisms have common ancestors with all other organisms, just at different times in the past. There is no mass stopping point with a bunch of different "kinds" and no ancestors for them.
... And it is a joke to pretend Science can find origin.
We'll see who gets the last laugh, science or mythology ... so far mythology has a pretty poor record of documenting reality.
Don't get me incorrect, I love Science but it has extreme limits. And real Science is actually observing, like the eclipse coming up.
It only has "extreme limits" in the minds of those who want those limits to be there. YECism on the other hand is constrained by their love of convenient lies and comfortable ignorance.
Real science observes all the evidence, including fossils and rocks, and then uses theory to explain those facts and make predictions. The eclipse is just simple celestial mechanics that even school kids can work out.
As an example of looking at all the facts we can observe all the evidence for an old earth and easily see that it exceeds the mythological age of YECism by several orders of magnetude. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 if you disagree.
Perhaps you can explain why there is so much evidence of an old earth that all conforms and correlates with all the other evidence?
If you love science then the pursuit of knowledge on how old the earth is should be of interest.
(RAZD: How would you draw a cladogram of chimps and humans?)
Not related. Different kinds. There is not any evidence suggesting the 2 species are related. Having similarities is a weak point to argue evolution.
So are Chimps and Gorillas in one kind or two? Orangutans? Gibbons? How do we know?
Can you tell me which of these are related to Chimps and which are related to Humans?
quote:
I'll help you get started:
Chimp: A, and ...
Human: N, and ...
How can you tell?
I'm not neutral but I can see different perspectives. I have not always been a beleiver. I took anatomy, biology, genetics, chemistry and many other courses in college and started realizing the universe is to organized, and life is to organized to not accept creation.
So, then all of creation is a record written in matter and time of the work of the god/s ... would not studying that record to understand it as fully as possible be more likely to find reality than looking in a book of myths and anecdotes, often contradicted by the full record of creation: the earth is older than 10,000 years, the universe is older still, and there was no global flood.
Science does not "prove" things (at best it validates theories that approximate reality) but it does disprove things, like world wide fantasy floods and preposterous young age.
Mythology neither proves nor disproves anything, it is not an exploratory/discovery paradigm. It just provides comfortable ignorance to coddle special people ... imho.
Such as the belief that people are special and different from the other animals.
Ok. I don't believe the flood was 4500 years ago. I am merely 1 of the millions of old earth creationist ...
So how old is the earth, out of curiosity ...
... And the flood would of been somewhere in the range of a 100,000 years ago.The book of nature has just as much to say about God as scripture and the two sources work together to explain our reality.
And yet you are still wrong about the flood. There is evidence in the "book of nature" that invalidates that date.
... Adam and Eve lived probably a couple hundred thousand years ago which is biblical. ...
Based on what evidence from the "book of nature" ... ? Genetics?
quote:In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living humans are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally. As with "Mitochondrial Eve", the title of "Y-chromosomal Adam" is not permanently fixed to a single individual, but can advance over the course of human history as paternal lineages become extinct.
Estimates of the time when Y-MRCA lived have also shifted as modern knowledge of human ancestry changes. In 2013, the discovery of a previously unknown Y-chromosomal haplogroup was announced,[1] which resulted in a slight adjustment of the estimated age of the human Y-MRCA.[2]
By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time.[3] While estimates as of 2014 suggested the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years),[4] the discovery of archaic Y-haplogroup has pushed back the estimated age of the Y-MRCA beyond the most likely age of the mt-MRCA. As of 2015, estimates of the age of the Y-MRCA range around 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, roughly consistent with the emergence of anatomically modern humans.[5]
quote:In human genetics, the Mitochondrial Eve (also mt-Eve, mt-MRCA) is the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, i.e., the most recent woman from whom all living humans descend in an unbroken line purely through their mothers, and through the mothers of those mothers, back until all lines converge on one woman. Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration,[2] but her age is not known with certainty; a 2009 estimate cites an age between c. 152 and 234 thousand years ago (95% CI);[3] a 2013 study cites a range of 99—148 thousand years ago.[4]
Because mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is almost exclusively passed from mother to offspring without recombination (see the exception at paternal mtDNA transmission), most mtDNA in every living person differs only by the mutations that have occurred over generations in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve".
So 200,000 to 300,000 years ago for "adam" and 152,000 to 234,000 years ago for "eve" ... was there a long time before one of "adam's" ribs was transmogrified into "eve" by god-magic?
Or was "eden" 200,000 to 234,000 years ago? and where was it?
For those who claim evolution is not science because it does not use maths ...
I was paraphrasing from a bunch of videos I've been watching, but maybe the one that's clearest on this subject is the one called Biology 312 or something like that. If that's wrong I'll come back and fix it: It's Biology 312, Video 62, and he starts off using the Punnett square at about 2:42.
He covers mutations later on in the course, starting here:
A lot of population genetics is about how mutations propagate through a population.
I notice you didn't answer Message 687 which is closer to the topic under discussion (see thread title)
I don't know and neither do you. IF we conclude based on the dating methods using radioisotopic dating 4.5 billion years old. IF we conclude based on a Birkeland current there is no way to know the age of anything. I would make the argument that the current state of Science in explaining the universe is out of date. The idea of blackholes, dark energy, inflation, etc and the like are weak ideas.
You can argue opinion and assertion all you want to, but beliefs that are held in spite of invalidating evidence are delusions.
What you mean like with fossilization? You pretty much need a flood, or something to control the micro environments of dead things, to create the right conditions to fossilize bones. What I find more interesting is the passage of giants in Gen 6, Enoch, etc authored thousands of years before we discovered those fossils.
" ... or something ... " leaves a lot of open ground to causes of fossilization sans global flood, including local flood.
But this too is off topic here. Why not try starting a new topic at Proposed New Topics
I love all the uncertainty in your last point, how exactly are you so confident?
It's what the objective empirical evidence based science says. You want to challenge that, then provide the scientific data and reasoning behind your challenge.
... IF we conclude based on the dating methods using radioisotopic dating 4.5 billion years old. ...
Fair enough, so now let's turn to the topic, and start with when life began -- when and what forms first appeared on earth, and how did we get from there to here.
Just MICROevolution?
MICROevolution plus MACROevolution? (and what is MACROevolution?)
MICROevolution plus something else (what and how does it work?)
Ok. The only life that evolved in a sense on the earth is plant life. It was not random, it was divine in origination. And the limits are divine as well. I don't know where that fits into the terms of micro or macro change but I don't think those ideas fit the image I'm describing. I will say it COULD appear as though it was micro and macro to those who are using Science today. ...
Okay, so we start with an archaic blue-green algae, which diverges into more types of algae and eventually you get rooted plants, grasses, trees and flowering plants.
The fossil record shows a gradual progression of evolution of plants in nested hierarchies.
quote:A clade (from Ancient Greek: κλάδος, klados, "branch") is a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1]
So a parent population forms a clade with all their descendants, each reproducing in the manner of their parent. Is that what you mean?
This involves both MICROevolution and MACROevolution as those terms are used by scientists:
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This process is observed everyday, in the lab and in the field. This is also called MICROevolution.
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.
If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.
(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.
These processes have all been observed today, and thus we know it is a fact that these processes do actually occur in nature.
The formation of diverse descendants and nested hierarchies is what is called MACROevolution in science.
This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. These same processes can be observed in the fossil record, for plants and for animals.
Now I noticed you said nothing about the animals yet, but more curiously to me is that creationism never mentions bacteria.
You and all other animals would not live without bacteria, as they are essential for the digestion of food. A significant portion of your bodyweight is made up of these beneficial bacteria.
Likewise, rooted plants would not live without bacteria that converts mineral nitrogen to fertilizing nitrates.
Yet I find no mention of bacteria in the bible.
13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
Curious how you correlate that with the deep age of the earth. Seems like a very long day, and a different definition for day than we currently use.
... And what I mean by Science is the kinda stuff you can actually observe in a lab.
Curiously what you mean by science is totally irrelevant. Scientists are the ones who get to define what science is and isn't, and they care more about the ant frasse in antarctica than you under informed opinion.
Science deals with what you can observe by any means anywhere anywhen. The only one you fool with your denial is yourself. I could just as easily say that the only bible I recognize as pertinent is a children's version:
But I somehow imagine that you would not find it sufficient for your argument (you use the King James, yes?)
Ignoring science does not make it go away, trying to redefine it doesn't alter it's validity, calling it by a different name doesn't change the work being done, day after day, by scientists in labs, in the field, in space.
Now you may think I have gone long and explained more details than you expected in response. That is because I treat creationist post as teaching moments for the silent readers of this forum, some struggling with whether or not the beliefs of their parents are valid in today's world, and in relation to the reality observed in the world, the solar system and the far reaches of the universe.
The difference between science and religion is that science provides a consistent explanatory network of information, facts and theories for how things happened. Geneis doesn't.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
