Oolon Colluphid

... and Panderichthys and 'fuzzy raptor' are...?

DT

pz

Immaculate creations of the Great Designer with no antecedents, obviously. The mechanism of their arrival is extremely technical and difficult to explain to a layman, but basically it goes: "poof".

ocean

Dr Dino is incredibly ignorant. Speciation is macroevolution, of course, evolution is a lie of the devil unless it supports Hovind's positions, then it becomes undeniable fact. :banghead:

Albion

DT, don't you get the impression that as long as humans are in their own little baramin, the rest of life can do what they hell it likes? I mean, that's what it seems to always come down to with these creationists.

And when you look at the criteria for deciding on how to plade species in baramins, scripture is the major overriding one. Can't you just see the whole biology community throwing Linnean classification of of the window in favour of something explicitly stated to be based on scripture?

Far as "kinds" being species is concerned, I assume that eventually they'll realise the Ark would be too small and have another go at defiining "kinds"? My general impression is that "kinds" are whatever they need to be in order to (a) plausibly fit everything on the Ark while (b) showing that the sort of evolution leading from apes to humans is impossible. If that takes putting crocs and alligators and goodness knows what else into the same baramin (or "kind"), then that's what we'll do. But it has to be a nonnegotioable position that humans are sole inhabitants of their baramin. Everything else is up for grabs.

Mageth

So not only does Dr. Dino say that the crocodile became two species (Macro Evolution). But that it took less than 4400 years to happen.

Actually, 13 living species in the Family Crocodylidae, 7 in the Subfamily Alligatorinae, and 2 in the Subfamily Gavialinae.

Doubting Didymus

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "maro" and "micro" evolution are stupid, meaningless, confused, poly-defined, ugly, worthless terminology and scarcely deserve a footnote* in the science history books of the future.

*Something like: "macro and micro evolution were terms that were very fashionable in biology during the ninteen-nineties, which just goes to provide further evidence for the now commonly accepted sociological 'theory of everyone-was-stupid-back-then'. They bore no resemblance to anything one might intuitively expect them to refer to and so ended up being defined in a hundred different ways, depending on the speaker. The concepts behind them were useful and innovative, of course, which is why in MODERN science we use terms for them that make sense. Nowadays only creationists use the terms 'macro' and 'micro' evolution, despite everyone else continually pointing out that the rest of the community abandoned the terms decades ago, and even they can not agree on what they mean."

- From the bottom of page 247 in "A History of Biological Concepts in the "Stupid Decades" -2049.

tgamble

Yes, but creation "science" is a stupid, confused, poly-defined, ugly, worthless movement and scarcely deserve a footnote* in the science history books of the future.

Emma Peel

Cool cite! When you get a chance, could you type in the part where they list the new, improved, "modern" terms that replaced "microevolution" & "macroevolution"? (I assume you still have the book lying around. :-)

Emma Peel

Have they ever been able to cross a cow with a sheep??? I see in Bryan College's database of hybrids there are references to allegedly successful attempts to get sheep eggs fertilized with bull semen, but has anyone ever gotten further than that?

Doubting Didymus

An excellent challenge! Perhaps a new thread is in order: a competition to rename macro and microevolution in a way that makes sense.