That would make God look dumb right?Originally posted by Guynemer
Here's a question that has always bothered me.
Let's say, thousands of years from now, we've colonized other worlds, many light-years away.
And then, surprise, Yeshua decides to make his return appearance to our insignificant little rock. The "Rapture".
What the hell happens to all the people who are on the other planets?
The earth is not as ignificant as you'd like to think. According to the bible it isn't. And it does not talk about ppl from other worlds.
Thousands of year from now. And why won't Yeshua come back before that time? Cos he's dumb? The bible states the Yeshua comes back when the gospel has been preached all over the world. If it's going at today's rate it will take some time.
So in thousands of years from now we'll find planets which are actually livable? And we'll travel to those place at a speed higher than light?
Don't let it give you a heart attackOriginally posted by Guynemer(As a side note, I have an almost overwhelming urge to rear-end those cars that have "WARNING: This car may be rendered driverless in case of Rapture" bumper stickers.)
BTW,-troll Urban.
Believing something to be a myth does not constitute proof that it is a myth. Otherwise, we'd have disproved the existence of God ages ago.Originally posted by Big Dave
Yes, I can refute it. If evolution is the myth I believe it to be then Deistic Evolution is also false.
Yeshua? Who is this guy?
God.
God the father or Jesus?Originally posted by Lars-E
God.
Actually, according to the laws of probability, there is at least a one in whatever chance of that happening, and if there is one single chance, it will happn sometime. The odds of the big bang happening were probably incredibly small, yet, because the only way for us to have this discussion is if it happens, it is guaranteed to happen.Many of you talk about the big bang. And everything just "happened." If that is so, how was it possible? You place all the nessicary computer components in a bag, toss it around a bit, and wala!!! You have a computer!! hahaha, sorry, doesn't work.
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"
Originally posted by Lars-E
The earth is not as ignificant as you'd like to think. According to the bible it isn't. And it does not talk about ppl from other worlds.
Thousands of year from now
So in thousands of years from now we'll find planets which are actually livable? And we'll travel to those place at a speed higher than light?It's called a hypothetical question, Lars. And way to go not answering it; thinking of running for office?
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
The Anthropic Principle beats the probability argument any day of the week. Wutang!Originally posted by MacTBone
because the only way for us to have this discussion is if it happens, it is guaranteed to happen.
I've got one - if sin came into the world because humans have free will, and can choose to do right or wrong, do we still have free will in heaven?
And if we do, how do we know that sin won't come into heaven, and we'll be back in the same mess we are now?
OK, not really to do with creationism...
Jesus.Originally posted by Goingonit
God the father or Jesus?
Now it all makes sense.
Jesus is God according to christian theology. And it's Jesus who's coming back - the 2nd coming.
Jesus calls himself Jahve at least once in the NT.
Maybe we can discuss the trinity later. I have to go now.
Here is where we disagree. Yes, micro-evolution (changes within a species) is a proven fact. Moths "adapting" to polution in England, breeding dogs for various purposes, etc. are all fact.Originally posted by Goingonit
Ah, but it can be ascertained through various other reproducible phenomena.
However, I have yet to see one instance of (for example) any species of fish being bred into any species of mammal. This would be evidence under the scientific method. Scientists mixing chemicals in artificial envroments to get the effect they want, then postulating that those conditions must have been what the earth was like 4.5 billion years ago (an arbitrary figure) to "prove" their hypothesis is not science. It is circular reasoning.
I have not seen or heard of any intermediate forms between one species and another showing up in the fossile record. This would be evidence under the legal/historical method.
I'm not sure what you now think is irrelevant. And if you think it is irrelevant then why did you bring it up in the first place?And you have not logically disproved it. You have just proved it irrelevant. Which it is.
No flames, trolls, or disrespect intended.
David
Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.
Originally posted by Big Dave
However, I have yet to see one instance of (for example) any species of fish being bred into any species of mammal.
Evolution doesn't work that way
I have not seen or heard of any intermediate forms between one species and another showing up in the fossile record. This would be evidence under the legal/historical method.
There is a lot of evidence of this - one species involving into one or more new species. I am sure someone can provide a link.
Capitalisation - The difference between helping your uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse
Grammar - The difference between knowing your $hit, and knowing you're $hit.
Spelling - The difference between being literate, and being Dinner.
Well there's a couple of species of fish alive now that might be relics that are similar to the species of fish that first conquered land. There are certain fish that have lungs as well as gills (http://www.gearupchicago.org/Academy...h/lungfish.htm) . There are also fish that can "walk" around across small pieces of land from one pond to another. Examples of these are the mudskipper (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/32309.html) or the Climbing Perch (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/38187.html).Originally posted by Big Dave
Here is where we disagree. Yes, micro-evolution (changes within a species) is a proven fact. Moths "adapting" to polution in England, breeding dogs for various purposes, etc. are all fact.
However, I have yet to see one instance of (for example) any species of fish being bred into any species of mammal. This would be evidence under the scientific method. Scientists mixing chemicals in artificial envroments to get the effect they want, then postulating that those conditions must have been what the earth was like 4.5 billion years ago (an arbitrary figure) to "prove" their hypothesis is not science. It is circular reasoning.
I have not seen or heard of any intermediate forms between one species and another showing up in the fossile record. This would be evidence under the legal/historical method.
I think you are another of these creationists that has no real concept of the timescales involved. I realise that evolution cannot have happened in the timescales desribed by the Bible, which only goes to show that it is a work of fiction (like Dante's Inferno). Let's use a biblical date as a reference point. JC was supposedly born about 2000 years ago. Amphibians appear in the fossile record about 350 MILLION years ago, which is a 175000 longer ago than Roman times. If you look at the average generation time of amphibians which is about a year or so, depending on the species, then that's is 350 million generations of amphibians since then. Then about 300 M years ago the reptiles appear. Reptiles are basically amphibians that do not rely on water to survive as they are fully able to breathe trough their lungs. Mammals appear a 100 M years later (which is still a 100000 times longer ago than JC).
Now I realise that these timescales are almost beyond the realms of the comprehensible, but that's what they are.
As an example of evolution at work, you only have to look at HIV. Random mutations (due to the inefficiency of it polymerase) result in large numbers of viurses that carry mutations. Most of these mutations are going to be deleterious, some are going to have no effect at all. Now put a heavy selectable pressure on them, for example by giving a retroviral drug that interferes with the HIV protease. At first the viral load drops dramatically, however some virus will have mutated in such a way the protease changes shape, and the drug has no effect anymore. This virus will then replicate, and soon the viral loads are back up again. Which is why nowadays combinations of three or four drugs are used, as the change of a strain developing that can beat all 3-4 actions is infitessmally small. However, at some point such a virus will arise, and the patient will still die. In the mean time billions upon billions of virus particles will have been produced, many of which will not have had the chance to infect another cell, and replicate.
Evolution is all a numbers game. No need for a guiding hand, and definitely no instant creation a we are now.
If they evoloved into something else why are they still around? If they evoloved into something else where are the fossiles of the intermidiate forms? I also notice that you say "might be" but evolution is always promoted as fact, not theory.Originally posted by lightblue
Well there's a couple of species of fish alive now that might be relics that are similar to the species of fish that first conquered land. There are certain fish that have lungs as well as gills (http://www.gearupchicago.org/Academ...sh/lungfish.htm) . There are also fish that can "walk" around across small pieces of land from one pond to another. Examples of these are the mudskipper (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/32309.html) or the Climbing Perch (http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/38187.html).
We have no idea what timescales are involved in the biblical record. The Sumerian King Record (predating the actual book of Genisis) describes their kings as living for up to 35,000 years. Biblical geneologies will read So-and-so was the father of such-and-such, but frequently skip several generations. So claiming that the Earth is 7,000 years old is not supportable from the Biblical text. The detailed geneologies were kept in separate records. As for the Bible being a work of fiction, research shows it to be an accurate historical work.I think you are another of these creationists that has no real concept of the timescales involved. I realise that evolution cannot have happened in the timescales desribed by the Bible, which only goes to show that it is a work of fiction (like Dante's Inferno).
There is no "supposed" about it. There are sufficient extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ that his existance is as much a proven fact as Napoleon's, or Shakespear's.Let's use a biblical date as a reference point. JC was supposedly born about 2000 years ago.
Please tell me how you know how long ago this occured?Amphibians appear in the fossile record about 350 MILLION years ago, ...
I really want someone to tell me how they know how long ago this happened.... which is a 175000 longer ago than Roman times. If you look at the average generation time of amphibians which is about a year or so, depending on the species, then that's is 350 million generations of amphibians since then. Then about 300 M years ago the reptiles appear. Reptiles are basically amphibians that do not rely on water to survive as they are fully able to breathe trough their lungs. Mammals appear a 100 M years later (which is still a 100000 times longer ago than JC).
Now I realise that these timescales are almost beyond the realms of the comprehensible, but that's what they are.
And we are still taking about micro-evolution. Nothing has become another species yet. And we are also talking about virii. The last I heard the jury was still out on whether or not a virus is actually alive.As an example of evolution at work, you only have to look at HIV. Random mutations (due to the inefficiency of it polymerase) result in large numbers of viurses that carry mutations. Most of these mutations are going to be deleterious, some are going to have no effect at all. Now put a heavy selectable pressure on them, for example by giving a retroviral drug that interferes with the HIV protease. At first the viral load drops dramatically, however some virus will have mutated in such a way the protease changes shape, and the drug has no effect anymore. This virus will then replicate, and soon the viral loads are back up again. Which is why nowadays combinations of three or four drugs are used, as the change of a strain developing that can beat all 3-4 actions is infitessmally small. However, at some point such a virus will arise, and the patient will still die. In the mean time billions upon billions of virus particles will have been produced, many of which will not have had the chance to infect another cell, and replicate.
Unless of course you are wrong about the age of the earth. And even then evolution is in direct conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.Evolution is all a numbers game. No need for a guiding hand, and definitely no instant creation a we are now.
Respectfully,
David
Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.
Sorry about the double post....
Last edited by Big Dave; February 17, 2002 at 18:21.
Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.
Have you ever heard of radiation or the half life of something? If you haven't then you need to look it up.
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"
And even then evolution is in direct conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
No it isn't.
Explain why you think it is and I will explain the flaw in your logic.
I really want someone to tell me how they know how long ago this happened.
It is based on the age of the rock the fossils are found in. The aging of rocks is accurate, and the fact the fossils are imbedded in the rock means they were made at the same time.
Capitalisation - The difference between helping your uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse
Grammar - The difference between knowing your $hit, and knowing you're $hit.
Spelling - The difference between being literate, and being Dinner.
Well I'm not saying they are the direct ancestors, but that they are probably similar to the creatures that first became less dependent on water. Also evolution does not work the same on all the members of a given species. Most evolutionary steps occur when a small subgroup is isolated from the main group and thus has to go through an evolutionary bottleneck.Originally posted by Big Dave
If they evoloved into something else why are they still around? If they evoloved into something else where are the fossiles of the intermidiate forms? I also notice that you say "might be" but evolution is always promoted as fact, not theory.
There are fossils that show intermediate steps of these, but as I am not an evolutionary biologists I can't find the references that fast. I did find a link to a story about a fossil that shows an intermediate between the landbased mammals that whales descended from and proto-whales. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci...00/1553008.stm This also links through to the Science website so you can read the whole paper if you have access.
As for "might be", I don't know the exact route that evolution has taken, but it is with very high probability through something like these fish.
Sure, you don't believe in evolution, but you believe in humans that can live thousands of years. You shouldn't undermine your credibility like that. As for the Bible, I think it was based on facts, but that it was "dramaticised" later to keep the interest of the readers up. You know add some central characters, put them opposite a central "evil" figure (Pharaoh, Herodote, Pontus Pilatus), stick in a couple of twists, add a nice hook, you know usual stuff. Very well written though, but I think it was largely written by the priest caste to stay in power, and to have a good way of tranferring lessons in moralities to the unwashed plebs. Stick it in veineer of mysticism and they'll swallow it hook, line and sinker. Then again, I might just be very cynical.We have no idea what timescales are involved in the biblical record. The Sumerian King Record (predating the actual book of Genisis) describes their kings as living for up to 35,000 years. Biblical geneologies will read So-and-so was the father of such-and-such, but frequently skip several generations. So claiming that the Earth is 7,000 years old is not supportable from the Biblical text. The detailed geneologies were kept in separate records. As for the Bible being a work of fiction, research shows it to be an accurate historical work.
OK, concede this point. Doesn't mean he's the Son of God though (but that's a different thread...), I mean David Koresh declared himself the Messiah as well.There is no "supposed" about it. There are sufficient extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ that his existance is as much a proven fact as Napoleon's, or Shakespear's.
You can date rocks with radioisotope dating. You look at amount of radioactive istopes still left, and as you know the half-life from experimental data you can work the time these animals were fossilised. Here's a short easy link on this methodology http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...sildating.htmlPlease tell me how you know how long ago this occured?
I really want someone to tell me how they know how long ago this happened.
Viruses are basically Von Neumann machines. They can replicate with the help of a cell. They are parasites, but they are very much alive, as witnessed by the fact that they evolve, and use the same way of carrying data (DNA). (EDIT: Or RNA for that matter, I work on DNA viruses, I occasionally forget about viruses that don't go through a DNA phase)And we are still taking about micro-evolution. Nothing has become another species yet. And we are also talking about virii. The last I heard the jury was still out on whether or not a virus is actually alive.
As viruses don't have sexual reproduction it is hard to talk about species. They are definitely different strains though, with as much as a couple percentage points difference in their coding data (whereas we share 99% with chimps). Same with bacteria.
You could do worse than looking up the examples Darwin used, the finches of the Galapagos. Completely different species evolved on different islands adaptig to the predominant food source on that island. They all derive from the same species that was blown in from the mainland. I suppose you'll call this microevolution as well, but they species do not cross-breed, and can therefore be counted as different species.
(EDIT 2: change radiocarbon to radioisotope. Dumb mistake, sorry)
Last edited by lightblue; February 18, 2002 at 14:52.
IIRC carbon dating is only used with fossils, i.e., things used to be alive once. Rocks are dated with uranium.Originally posted by lightblue
You can date rocks with radiocarbon dating.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Once more unto the breach...
Evolution is "taught as fact" because it IS a fact. There is no doubt that evolution is happening, it has been observed many times.
Another fact is common descent: there is no doubt that modern species developed from common ancestors. We have thousands of "transitional forms" in the fossil record, the branching pattern of the evolutionary "tree of life" is obvious in living organisms (it forms the basis of the Linnaean classification system: species, genus etc). And it's supported by DNA analysis. For instance, there was a classic creationist blunder recently when it was claimed that because crocodiles are genetically more similar to birds than lizards, this "disproved" the accuracy of DNA analysis. Actually, it proved exactly the opposite. Crocodiles, birds and dinosaurs all evolved from the archosaurs, a specific subgroup of reptiles which does not include lizards, turtles or snakes, which branched off earlier: crocodiles should be more closely related to birds than to other reptiles, because they share a more recent common ancestor.
It is also false to say that "macro-evolution has never been observed". "Macro" means "a lot", "micro" means "a little". Therefore, inevitably, micro-evolution over a long time IS macro-evolution, and observation of micro-evolution IS observation of a little bit of macro-evolution. Creationists seek to get out of this by redefining these terms, to make macro-evolution a different process than micro-evolution. But they can't make this work, because they cannot come up with any definition of "macro-evolution" which makes it a fundamentally different process which has never been observed. They've tried "beneficial mutation", but that's been observed. They've tried "never-before-seen beneficial mutation", but that's been observed. They've tried "increased information", but that's been observed. They've tried "the formation of new species", but that's been observed. And so on...
Anybody else has stumper questions for creationists?
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
I have a question for those who think the Earth might have been recently created "with the appearance of age".
If the entire Universe is supposedly only a few thousand years old, what exactly IS the appearance of age?
Supposedly, no planet has ever naturally aged. Why should "the appearance of age" involve dinosaurs, plate tectonics, fossil bacteria, radioactive decay products sealed into rocks, and so forth? If evolution is false and no planets are old anyhow, why should "the appearance of age" involve "the appearance of evolution"?
Carbon dating only works for young "fossils", anything over ~30,000yrs and I think you're in hazy territory anything over 100,000yrs and its entirely useless, . Half-life is ~6,000yrs IIRCOriginally posted by Urban Ranger
IIRC carbon dating is only used with fossils, i.e., things used to be alive once. Rocks are dated with uranium.
Capitalisation - The difference between helping your uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse
Grammar - The difference between knowing your $hit, and knowing you're $hit.
Spelling - The difference between being literate, and being Dinner.
I did not state that I believed what was written in the Summerian King Records, I merely stated that it existed. Point 2, this is not about my crediblity. This is about the facts concerning evolution. If (and I do say IF) a case can be made for humans living close to a thousand years (cf. Methuselah (sp?)) I will consider the facts pertaining to that and wiegh them on their own merits. But that is not the topic right now.Originally posted by lightblue
Sure, you don't believe in evolution, but you believe in humans that can live thousands of years. You shouldn't undermine your credibility like that.
The evidence is that the Bible was written concurent with the events described in it. We have historical evidence for most of the major players and can date the time of any given book's authorship with a fair degree if certainty. Since the peoples of those times had no study of history or archeology we can also be certain (due to the historical accuracy of the content of the books of the Bible) that they were not written after the fact.As for the Bible, I think it was based on facts, but that it was "dramaticised" later to keep the interest of the readers up. You know add some central characters, put them opposite a central "evil" figure (Pharaoh, Herodote, Pontus Pilatus), stick in a couple of twists, add a nice hook, you know usual stuff. Very well written though, but I think it was largely written by the priest caste to stay in power, and to have a good way of tranferring lessons in moralities to the unwashed plebs. Stick it in veineer of mysticism and they'll swallow it hook, line and sinker. Then again, I might just be very cynical.
The transmission of these books (actually scrolls at the time) was performed by a class of the priesthood called Scribes. Their job was not only to copy each scroll, but when finished to count the total number of characters in the scroll and make sure that it agreed with how many were supposed to be there. Then pick a letter, say an ayin (pronounce eye-in), and count that. So each scroll had the equivelant of two separate checksums performed on it to make sure that it was an accurate copy of the original. That takes us up to 70 AD when the Romans sacked the Temple in Jerusalem. For the New Testament we have over 10,000 coppies and fragments of scrolls dating back to around 150 AD. Since there are no major differences in all these coppies we can be fairly certain that they are accurate representations of the letters (scrolls, books) of the New Testament. Subsequent translations were based on that, for example the Latin Vulgate. The oldest surviving manuscripts we had were from around 1300 AD (I'm not positive on that date, someone correct me if I'm wrong). This is for the Tanakh (OT). However opening up the caves at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls) and piecing together one scroll of Isaiah we found there revealed fewer than a dozen changes, and none of those changes changed the meaning of the text.
I'm familliar with the concept of radiometric dating. What I want to know is if you walk into a room and see a lit candle on the table, how long has it been burning? You have no idea how tall it was to begin with, so measuring it now, then after 30 minutes will tell you how far it burnt in 30 minutes, but it won't tell you how tall the candle was when it was lit.You can date rocks with radioisotope dating. You look at amount of radioactive istopes still left, and as you know the half-life from experimental data you can work the time these animals were fossilised. Here's a short easy link on this methodology
Three attempts at radiometric dating of one single rock can yield ages over a billion years apart. You have no idea how much U-235 you started with in that sample, so you can't possibly know what half of it is to determine what percentage of U-235 is left.
And where exactly does "strain" fit in with Kingdom, Phylum, etc?Viruses are basically Von Neumann machines. They can replicate with the help of a cell. They are parasites, but they are very much alive, as witnessed by the fact that they evolve, and use the same way of carrying data (DNA). (EDIT: Or RNA for that matter, I work on DNA viruses, I occasionally forget about viruses that don't go through a DNA phase). As viruses don't have sexual reproduction it is hard to talk about species. They are definitely different strains though, with as much as a couple percentage points difference in their coding data (whereas we share 99% with chimps). Same with bacteria.
I've read Origin of Species. Then can still cross breed, they're just not attracted to the different "styles". Just like I don't find Hottentot women attractive, it doesn't mean I can't breed with one.You could do worse than looking up the examples Darwin used, the finches of the Galapagos. Completely different species evolved on different islands adaptig to the predominant food source on that island. They all derive from the same species that was blown in from the mainland. I suppose you'll call this microevolution as well, but they species do not cross-breed, and can therefore be counted as different species.
Respectfully,
David
Edit: Fixed mangled vB code.
Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.
Would you change your mind if we could supply "satisfactory" answers? Or is your mind made up?Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is a thread where evolutionists can post questions for creationists. We will see how many of them reply with satisfactory answers.
This is an honest question. I once believed as you do, that there is no God but the Unholy Trinity of Me, Myself, and I. And that Evolution must be true because it proved what I wanted to believe.
I am not a know-it-all. There is at least one microbiologist in here who will know alot more than I do about microbiology. I am a computer geek by profession and an amature historian. I have changed my world view from agnostic/athiest (depending on what day of the week it was), to Christian based on what my historical research revealed. None of which was taught in the US's gov't run schools.
I am going to try to answer the questions you folks pose to the best of my ability, but I will freely admit there will be things I just don't know. Even dealing with computers there is a lot I don't know.
David
Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.
I'm trying to figure out why you're asking this. I don't know everything about how God designed us, I am not God. However this "vestigial" could be left over from before the Fall, hanging on as we devolve.Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Here's a good one: why do humans have the appendix (vermiform appendix)?
More to the point, why would we evolve something we don't need or use?
David
Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.
According to what I've heard, mainly from my history prof., the NT was written mainly after Jesus died. Hmmmmm, doesn't the Bible contain a whole lot of info on that guy?The evidence is that the Bible was written concurent with the events described in it. We have historical evidence for most of the major players and can date the time of any given book's authorship with a fair degree if certainty. Since the peoples of those times had no study of history or archeology we can also be certain (due to the historical accuracy of the content of the books of the Bible) that they were not written after the fact.
If half-lifes only work if we already know how much uranium is there then it would br pretty pointless, right? So why would the scientific community as a whole use it?
I never know their names, But i smile just the same
New faces...Strange places,
Most everything i see, Becomes a blur to me
-Grandaddy, "The Final Push to the Sum"
When and where? I'm not talking about micro evolution, I'm talking macro evolution. When has one species been observed transforming into another through breeding?Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Evolution is "taught as fact" because it IS a fact. There is no doubt that evolution is happening, it has been observed many times.
And how can it be observed since we've all been taught that it takes billions of years? I don't know about you, but I'm only 45!
Reference a book, point me to a link. Show me some reputable scientific evidence, please. The only transitional forms I have seen are artists conceptions. No fossiles exist that I am aware of.Another fact is common descent: there is no doubt that modern species developed from common ancestors. We have thousands of "transitional forms" in the fossil record, the branching pattern of the evolutionary "tree of life" is obvious in living organisms (it forms the basis of the Linnaean classification system: species, genus etc). And it's supported by DNA analysis. For instance, there was a classic creationist blunder recently when it was claimed that because crocodiles are genetically more similar to birds than lizards, this "disproved" the accuracy of DNA analysis. Actually, it proved exactly the opposite. Crocodiles, birds and dinosaurs all evolved from the archosaurs, a specific subgroup of reptiles which does not include lizards, turtles or snakes, which branched off earlier: crocodiles should be more closely related to birds than to other reptiles, because they share a more recent common ancestor.
It is also false to say that "macro-evolution has never been observed". "Macro" means "a lot", "micro" means "a little". Therefore, inevitably, micro-evolution over a long time IS macro-evolution, and observation of micro-evolution IS observation of a little bit of macro-evolution. Creationists seek to get out of this by redefining these terms, to make macro-evolution a different process than micro-evolution. But they can't make this work, because they cannot come up with any definition of "macro-evolution" which makes it a fundamentally different process which has never been observed. They've tried "beneficial mutation", but that's been observed. They've tried "never-before-seen beneficial mutation", but that's been observed. They've tried "increased information", but that's been observed. They've tried "the formation of new species", but that's been observed. And so on...
When has anyone observed a frog becoming a man? Outside a fairy tale I mean.
The only definition I am familliar with for micro-evolution is the combining of existing genes within a species to make a new breed. For example the sugar beet. You can breed beets to get more sugar out of them by combining the beets with the most sugar. But you max out around 17% sugar because that is all the genes beets have for sugar. You can't add more genes and you can't change the existing genes. This is micro-evolution. I already referenced the moths (I forget the breed) in England that were light grey (I believe) before the Industrial Revolution. Then when all the polution turned the tree bark dark all the light ones got eaten, so only the dark ones bred. This is another case of micro-evolution, merely a redistribution of existing genes. Darwin's finches on the Galapagoes islands are another example. Just different breeds in the same species.
Macro evolution would be the introduction of new genes. Please give me links/books from reputable scientists to refer to that demonstrate the natural introduction of a new gene into a species.
Respectfully,
David
Any flames in this message are solely in the mind of the reader.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks