roxrkool

ahaha :notworthy

Calzaer

*points again at my post*

Macroevolution has been observed. Isn't that nifty?

Goober

Isn't this whole micro/macroevolution thing a bit stupid?

The large differences between species which we term macroevolution are simply the accumulation of many small changes due to microevolution, aren't they? So whats the problem with macroevolution?

If you accept microevolution, then how can you deny macroevolution if macroevolution is just accumulation of microevolutionary changes?

Oolon Colluphid

Yes, you should, since in science ‘species’ has a fairly definite meaning. Though oddly enough, actually finding a meaning of it that can be consistently used in all circumstances is nigh on impossible. And the reason for this is simple: evolution.
No, how about not that. You need to have a definition that can be used with reasonable consistency. In fact, if creation were correct, it should be reasonably simple to provide a definition. Just what the hell is a “type of species”, and how on earth are we to identify one? Does it roughly equate to genus, family, order, class... or something else?

I guess you are referring to the biblical ‘kind’. So, what is a ‘kind’? It is vital that you tell us, if we’re to see if such groupings of organisms are genuine -- that is, if you are to persuade us that ‘kinds’ are immutable. For that is the core of your claim, is it not? If larger-scale evolution is not possible, then you must show us where the boundaries are.
Whoo-hoo! You are in error, big time: that is a very stupid straw man you’ve got there. Please show us where evolution claims that this is how it works. Try a browse through eg Futuyma’s evolution textbook (see the ‘sticky’ at top of forum). Let us know.

On second thought, I’ll save you the time, though you should have a look at the book even so. Evolution claims no such thing. Therefore your argument is false.
I disagree with the idea that if I jump out of a tall building, I’ll fall to the ground. But though I have not tried it, there is plenty of evidence that that is what will happen. So my disagreement is neither here nor there. Similarly, there is plenty of evidence for so-called ‘macroevolution’.

So I don’t give two hoots whether you like it or not: if you wish to persuade us that it is not the case, you must provide some goddamned evidence to the contrary.

And something we’ve not heard dozens of times before would be nice, though I realise that that might be too tall an order.

Oh, and I suspect another straw man is lurking amid your ignorance: evolution does not claim piles of sludge and primordial soups (at least not as those make it sound). It claims self-replicating molecules. (You do know what a molecule is, right?)

TTFN, Oolon

ps418

Really? What sandstone are you referring to? Were the same methods used in both cases? Were the same materials dated in both cases? Since experience has taught me that YEC claims about radiometric dating are often inaccurate, and frequently outright fabrications, please provide a reference to the primary sources, so I can verify your description of the facts.

Patrick

Joe Meert

JM: See answer above, it appears to be the study discussed:

Spenser

Actually modern Homo Sapiens evolved independently of Neanderthals, at least more modern theory goes. They developed independently in Africa while Neanderthals developed in Europe and when climates changed enough to let the two meet, we won...



There have been many who put up a good argument that microevolution is completely provable but macro isn't. There argument is that all genetics are initially available in organisms to 'mutate', say become resistant to disease or in the case of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics but that they are the same species. They show some mathematical number of gene combinations to show this 'adaptability.'

Note: I keep saying they cause I can't remember what magazine I read this in, but it was more scientific than theological.

However there hasn't been any proof of a change in the initial genetics in order to classify a new species (their claim, not mine). I think what is being failed to be realized is that macroevolution takes an enormous amount of time, not the kind of time we can test in a lab in a day or even a life time. So many rest their arguments on the fact that macroevolution cannot be demonstrated.

Well to me this is stupid, you may not be able to demonstrate it in a lab due to lack of time, however, there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that it occurred. Theists never seem to attack the latter with anything that holds much credibility so many attack the former and offer it as proof. Bogus!

What I think is funny is how much the church itself has 'evolved' through the years...

Once again Magus, when it is stated that China has a WRITTEN HISTORY, well documented, that goes back farther than your supposed flood, you seem to abandon your argument. Can you never admit when you have been shown wrong? And saying that their WRITTEN HISTORY is bogus doesn't float, no credible historian would ever agree with you and I don't think you are much of an authority on Chinese history. So once again, solid evidence that your flood is bogus and your bible is fallible...

Spaz

The fact that this thread exists makes me want to cry. What the hell are you thinking magus? Either you disagree with the dates that the flood people assigned to the flood, or you disagree with the WRITTEN HISTORIES of civilizations that existed before, during, and after your flood. Which is it?

Mageth

I've asked Magus to post the date he thinks the Flood actually occurred, and as of yet, I've gotten no response.

He can't even begin to talk about the flood in relation to the accepted dates of various civilizations until he establishes a date for the flood.

Spaz

Well he's fucked anyway. In order for it to work it would have to come at a time way before his 6000 year cut-off