|
Author
|
Topic: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
Message 5 of 284 (343474)
08-26-2006 12:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by mjfloresta
08-25-2006 11:49 PM
|
|
From which of the kinds on Noah's ark, do you suppose that the following animals evolved:
kangaroo
platypus
koala
panda
sloth
komodo dragon
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by mjfloresta, posted 08-25-2006 11:49 PM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 164 of 284 (343909)
08-27-2006 10:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 163 by Faith
08-27-2006 9:58 AM
|
|
Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
I hope MJ can define "body plan." Maybe you have the ability to do it yourself. Surely you can recognize the basic body build of a horse as versus a goat as versus a dog as versus an elephant. Try for a definition.
That's where your use of "body plan" becomes confusing. If you had asked me for examples with different body plans, I might have looked to octupus, ant, tapeworm as three examples. I see horse, goat, dog, elephant as all having the same basic body plan.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 163 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 9:58 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 165 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 10:21 AM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 171 of 284 (343924)
08-27-2006 11:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
08-27-2006 10:21 AM
|
|
Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
Does "body build" suggest something different?
Sure. But you get differences of body build between humans.
Cat body flexibility vs. dog body stiffness perhaps is a distinction.
Some humans are pretty flexible, while others are stiff. This hardly seems a difference of "body plan".
Elephant trunk, tusks, thick legs. Etc.
The elephant's trunk is still a nose. The tusks are still teeth. The thick legs are still legs.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 10:21 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 11:40 AM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Response please
I am still interested in your response to Message 5.
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Response please
It is likely that each of the species that you mention are representative of kinds that are no longer well represented - the other member species disappeared by extinction.
Then I will take it that you have no answer. The important thing about the creatures I mentioned, is that where they lived is very far from the middle east, and there is no evidence of any close relative any where near where Noah is supposed to have populated his ark. The very existence of such creatures already demonstrates that the idea of a global flood is no more than myth or fable. Thus it is no surprise that you are unable to provide a suitable explanation, consistent with the flood story, of how there could be such creatures.
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 219 of 284 (344146)
08-28-2006 2:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 217 by Faith
08-28-2006 1:57 AM
|
|
I was right on topic
He answered you sufficiently in the context of the topic of this thread,
No. He gave a vague handwaving response which simply evaded the question.
You are raising another topic that has been discussed on many other threads, about how the various animals got dispersed throughout the earth.
No. This is about creatures that could not possibly be explained by micro-evolution from what was plausibly on the ark. It is very much on topic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 217 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 1:57 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:40 AM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 233 of 284 (344225)
08-28-2006 8:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
08-28-2006 2:40 AM
|
|
Re: I was right on topic
There was nothing handwaving about it, just as most of what evos call handwaving isn't.
There is nothing in his answer that could ever be checked against the evidence even if we had complete information about the past.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:40 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 250 of 284 (344422)
08-28-2006 7:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
08-28-2006 4:21 PM
|
|
prejudice
Well, our PREMISES will never meet with scientific approval of course, given the prejudices against the Bible.
There is no scientific prejudice against the Bible, that I know of. If anything, there is a bias toward it, in that it is considered more important than other ancient texts. There isn't any idolatry toward the Bible either, at least among scientists. Edited by nwr, : better title
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 248 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 4:21 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 251 by AdminNosy, posted 08-28-2006 8:53 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2