Creationists: A Very Simple Question

[Skwim]

How can creationists agree microevolution occurs, and a lot of them do, but disagree with the idea of macroevolution?


An example from Eric Hovind, creationist

Only . . . micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science. For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400± varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn. There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related! Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening. Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science. Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word.
source​

And just for everyone's benefit, a little FYI from Wikipedia

"Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales. Microevolution refers to small evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. while macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools."

​

And from the Biology Dictionary

"The term ‘macroevolution’ is often used in contrast to the within-species genetic changes that relate to microevolution, although the two concepts are fundamentally the same, albeit on different time scales; each of the evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—that alter the gene pool of a population through microevolution, will accumulate over a long time period, resulting ultimately in macroevolution."
source



​

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pretty much because you have to be utterly blind to not accept micro-evolution. To do so would be to cross the line between ignorance and stupidity. However, macro-evolution conflicts with the world view they already accept as true. With one, a straind of TB that becomes treatment resistant is still TB, but with the other it becomes problematic as their understanding of evolution presents challenges given their expectations of dogs giving birth to bear-pig-eagles, rather than something more like the visible spectrum gradually turning from red to violet.
And given your enthusiasm for poking at Evangelicals, I'll assume you are aware of the arguments they present, literature they read, and how their highly insular sub-culture makes it very difficult for information to get through.

 

[Deeje]

How can creationists agree microevolution occurs, and a lot of them do, but disagree with the idea of macroevolution?

Calling them both "evolution" as if they are one and the same process is deliberately misleading. A bit of scientific sleight of hand if you will.

Adaptation is provable and observable, but it only takes place within one taxonomic family of organisms. No creature morphs into another, no matter how much time you throw at it. Canines were always canines and felines have always been felines and the same can be said for any other organism. They never cross over from one creature to another. The suggestion that whales were once four legged furry land dwellers is simply ridiculous!

Macro-evolution is not observable and is based on assumption and suggestion rather than on any real evidence.

To suggest that a single celled organism, at sometime in the dim, dark past, spontaneously sprang into existence for no apparent reason, then mutated itself through natural processes into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on earth, IMO should be treated as more of an imaginative fantasy than any belief in an Intelligent Creator.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Calling them both "evolution" as if they are one and the same process is deliberately misleading. A bit of scientific sleight of hand if you will.

It really isn't. Evolution is the word used to describe a process that produces change in living populations over time. Like it or not, a generational change over time IS a result of evolution, whether that change is below or above the species level. In the case of both simple adaptation and speciation, the name we give to the process which causes both is the same - evolution. The process is the same, only the scale is different; In much the same way that the fall of a pin and the coming together of solar systems is caused by the same force - gravity.

Adaptation is provable and observable, but it only takes place within one taxonomic family of organisms. No creature morphs into another, no matter how much time you throw at it. Canines were always canines and felines have always been felines and the same can be said for any other organism. They never cross over from one creature to another. The suggestion that whales were once four legged furry land dwellers is simply ridiculous!

I've explained this to you before, Deeje. Evolution is always WITHIN the taxonomic rank. Nothing ever becomes "another creature" (which is deliberately vaguely worded). Everything produces variations of what they are. Also, your assertion that canines were always canines and felines were always felines demands evidence. What fossils of dogs or cats can you find dating back to the origin of life?

Macro-evolution is not observable and is based on assumption and suggestion rather than on any real evidence.

Once again Deeje, this has been explained to you as wrong, so I can only assume you are now persisting in a deliberate lie. Here we go again:

"Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above."
SOURCE: Macroevolution - Definition, Examples and Quiz | Biology Dictionary

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level."
SOURCE: What is macroevolution?

"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population."
SOURCE: Macroevolution - Wikipedia

Evolution above the species level (i.e "speciation", i.e "macroevolution") HAS been observed multiple times:

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

If you do NOT consider these to be examples of macroevolution, then please give details of a testable definition whereby we may actually be able to observe macroevolution. If we WERE to observe macroevolution, what, precisely, should we observe?

To suggest that a single celled organism, at sometime in the dim, dark past, spontaneously sprang into existence for no apparent reason, then mutated itself through natural processes into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on earth, IMO should be treated as more of an imaginative fantasy than any belief in an Intelligent Creator.

Your opinion is noted and rightfully ignored.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Calling them both "evolution" as if they are one and the same process is deliberately misleading. A bit of scientific sleight of hand if you will.

It's not misleading. It's accurate.
It IS the same processes.

The only difference is how long the process is running.
Over a couple generations, the process of evolution results in micro evolution.
Over thousands of generations, the exact same process of evolution results in macro evolution.

Kind of like "walking". The process of walking is taking a left step, right step, repeat ad infinitum.

After 10 steps, you've covered the micro distance of a some 8-9 meters.
After 10 thousand steps, you've covered the macro distance of some 8-9 kilometers.

Both were accomplished with the exact same process of "walking": left step, right step, repeat.

Canines were always canines and felines have always been felines and the same can be said for any other organism

Canines product canines.
Mammals produce mammals.
Vertebrates produce vertebrates.

You seem to think that macro evolution means that a creature would one day give birth to a creature of a different species. That's off course not how evolution works.

They never cross over from one creature to another.

Off course they don't. If that would happen, then evolution would be falsified.

Every creature ever born was of the same species as its parents.
All descendents of a creature, will forever belong to the same taxonomic branche as the original ancestor.

No descendent of homo will ever be a non-homo. Or non-primate. Or non-mammal. Or non-vertebrate.

Speciation is not a cat turning into a dog.
It rather is a species becoming a sub-species (which happens gradually, not overnight).

The suggestion that whales were once four legged furry land dwellers is simply ridiculous!

if you think so.
Doesn't change the fact that its ancestors were 4-legged land mammals.

Macro-evolution is not observable and is based on assumption and suggestion rather than on any real evidence.

Except we've observed it happening (that is to say: we've seen species split to the point where the different sub-species could no longer reproduce with one another).
And barring that, common ancestry of species simply is a genetic fact. Very demonstrable, very testable, very verifiable.

To suggest that a single celled organism, at sometime in the dim, dark past, spontaneously sprang into existence for no apparent reason, then mutated itself through natural processes into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on earth, IMO should be treated as more of an imaginative fantasy than any belief in an Intelligent Creator.

Argument from incredulity really is a very poor way to argue.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How can creationists agree microevolution occurs, and a lot of them do, but disagree with the idea of macroevolution?

Because people continually confuse adaptation within the Kind as any type of evolution occurring at all.....

 

[Deeje]

Evolution is the word used to describe a process that produces change in living populations over time. Like it or not, a generational change over time IS a result of evolution, whether that change is below or above the species level.

We keep hearing about "speciation" as if it is the production of a new creature in the evolutionary process. "Speciation" is the creation of a new variety of creature within one taxonomic family. Variety is seen within all creatures because they are all designed with adaptive abilities programmed into their DNA....but these many varieties are "species" of one creature. They will never be anything else.

The whale evolution scenario is therefore a load of rubbish. Those four legged furry creatures were not whales. The mere thought is ridiculous, especially when you examine the evidence for their conclusions. There is nothing linking any of those creatures to one another except a dodgy ear bone. And they can't even get that right.

[/QUOTE]

So what are we looking at really?

"Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution. Evolutionary change tends to be concentrated within speciation events. The direction of transpecific evolution is determined by the process of species selection, which is analogous to natural selection but acts upon species within higher taxa rather than upon individuals within populations. Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species. Rates of speciation can be estimated for living taxa by means of the equation for exponential increase, and are clearly higher for mammals than for bivalve mollusks."

A theory of evolution above the species level. - PubMed - NCBI

If estimations based on equations are a substitute for real evidence, then you are welcome to them.

In the case of both simple adaptation and speciation, the name we give to the process which causes both is the same - evolution. The process is the same, only the scale is different; In much the same way that the fall of a pin and the coming together of solar systems is caused by the same force - gravity.

But the processes are not the same. Micro-evolution only produces variety within a specific family of creatures.
As I have pointed out countless numbers of times, Darwin did not observe "evolution"...he probably observed "speciation" which just gave him more varieties of finches. Whether species can interbreed is irrelevant. That just keeps the varieties specific. It prevents a mish-mash of non-specific "half whatever" creatures that could not be classified. Whenever we see a bird or an animal, we know what it is because they are programmed to breed only with their own "kind".

I've explained this to you before, Deeje. Evolution is always WITHIN the taxonomic rank. Nothing ever becomes "another creature" (which is deliberately vaguely worded).

Rubbish. Whales were not once walking furry land animals. They were specifically created for aquatic life, just as the furry land dweller was created for terrestrial life.
Their aquatic features are not accidental mutations, but beautifully designed for the life they were created to live...including their abundant food sources. The largest creature on earth feasts on the smallest....and weighs several tons. The habitats of all creatures were created in expectation of their arrival. As were their food sources and even the air they breathed, and the water they drank. Without precipitation dumping fresh water on the earth, no land animals could live.....without salt in the oceans, marine creatures couldn't either.

Science seems to allow for a lot of fortunate accidents in its evolution story. None of it adds up though. How many flukes does it take before you statistically run out of numbers?

Your opinion is noted and rightfully ignored.

Ditto. You stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine. Those who are interested enough to really check out the evidence for themselves will make their own decisions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We keep hearing about "speciation" as if it is the production of a new creature in the evolutionary process. "Speciation" is the creation of a new variety of creature within one taxonomic family. Variety is seen within all creatures because they are all designed with adaptive abilities programmed into their DNA....but these many varieties are "species" of one creature. They will never be anything else.

The whale evolution scenario is therefore a load of rubbish. Those four legged furry creatures were not whales. The mere thought is ridiculous, especially when you examine the evidence for their conclusions. There is nothing linking any of those creatures to one another except a dodgy ear bone. And they can't even get that right.

So what are we looking at really?

"Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution. Evolutionary change tends to be concentrated within speciation events. The direction of transpecific evolution is determined by the process of species selection, which is analogous to natural selection but acts upon species within higher taxa rather than upon individuals within populations. Species selection operates on variation provided by the largely random process of speciation and favors species that speciate at high rates or survive for long periods and therefore tend to leave many daughter species. Rates of speciation can be estimated for living taxa by means of the equation for exponential increase, and are clearly higher for mammals than for bivalve mollusks."

A theory of evolution above the species level. - PubMed - NCBI

If estimations based on equations are a substitute for real evidence, then you are welcome to them.

None of this has anything to do with what I wrote, so it is ignored.

But the processes are not the same.

Wrong. The process is exactly the same, the only difference is the time scale involved. Even if you don't believe in common ancestry, it is still a fact that both micro and macro-evolution are the same process at different scales.

Micro-evolution only produces variety within a specific family of creatures.

By definition, micro-evolution is evolution below the level of species while macro-evolution is evolution above the level of species. Both are evolution, just on different scales. They are not "different kinds" of evolution, they are both the same process simply looked at on a different scale (depending on the relative rate of genetic change).

As I have pointed out countless numbers of times, Darwin did not observe "evolution"...he probably observed "speciation" which just gave him more varieties of finches.

Darwin died over 150 years ago - since then we HAVE observed speciation, as I have already explained. Our understanding and observation of evolution have moved on significantly since Darwin's first observations.

Whether species can interbreed is irrelevant. That just keeps the varieties specific. It prevents a mish-mash of non-specific "half whatever" creatures that could not be classified. Whenever we see a bird or an animal, we know what it is because they are programmed to breed only with their own "kind".

What you've just said is contradictory. You're saying that interbreeding is irrelevant and produces "half-whatever creatures", and then you said that animals are "programmed" to breed with their own "kind". So, are interbreeding animals the same "kind" or not? Also, if a human being isn't sexually attracted to anyone outside of their own race, for example, does that make each different human race a separate "kind"?

Rubbish. Whales were not once walking furry land animals.

This is just what the evidence shows. Your incredulity is irrelevant.

Their aquatic features are not accidental mutations, but beautifully designed for the life they were created to live...including their abundant food sources. The largest creature on earth feasts on the smallest....and weighs several tons. The habitats of all creatures were created in expectation of their arrival. As were their food sources and even the air they breathed, and the water they drank. Without precipitation dumping fresh water on the earth, no land animals could live.....without salt in the oceans, marine creatures couldn't either.

Science seems to allow for a lot of fortunate accidents in its evolution story. None of it adds up though. How many flukes does it take before you statistically run out of numbers?

"Flukes" and "accidents" don't occur in a system governed by natural selection. When you reverse your perspective (life adapting to fit the environment vs. the environment being shaped to support life), it becomes a lot clearer.

Ditto. You stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine. Those who are interested enough to really check out the evidence for themselves will make their own decisions.

On that, we certainly agree. Though I do feel the need to point out that a lot of what you're saying isn't opinion - it's deliberate misrepresentation. I wouldn't mind if you just didn't agree with common descent, but you seem intent on lying not only about what evolution actually is and claims, but lying about what posters on here tell you. When you have one side in a disagreement telling the truth and the other side deliberately misrepresenting both the facts and the other side of the debate, the water gets muddied.

Not that it really matters. Evolution won the "debate" decades ago.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We keep hearing about "speciation" as if it is the production of a new creature in the evolutionary process. "Speciation" is the creation of a new variety of creature within one taxonomic family. Variety is seen within all creatures because they are all designed with adaptive abilities programmed into their DNA....but these many varieties are "species" of one creature. They will never be anything else.

That’s all we ever see.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species.

It doesn’t matter how many mutations the Husky undergoes, it remains a Husky. It produces only Husky when mated with Husky.

But now let’s all IMAGINE that magically over millions of years it changes into something else. Ignoring the fossil record where every creature found remains the same across those claimed millions of years until it goes extinct.

So, now we are left having to IMAGINE “missing common ancestors “ to connect separate creatures because we ignored the fossil record and real life observation.

Evolution is a valid possibility as long as we ignore real life, the entire fossil record, and use only our imaginations..... it fits the imaginary data perfectly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That’s all we ever see.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species.

It doesn’t matter how many mutations the Husky undergoes, it remains a Husky. It produces only Husky when mated with Husky.

This is a lie. We have repeatedly directly observed speciation in living populations. We have witnessed first hand single populations of an organism spread into two different geographical locations and, over a certain amount of time, the first population is no longer capable of interbreeding with the second. This has been observed multiple times:

Ring species - Wikipedia

So, if two populations of the same species can no longer interbreed, what does that indicate to you about the nature of genetic variance?

But now let’s all IMAGINE that magically over millions of years it changes into something else. Ignoring the fossil record where every creature found remains the same across those claimed millions of years until it goes extinct.

This is also a lie. What we see in the fossil record is gradual change. We find fossils of long extinct forms, then later in the record find fossils of very similar forms, getting increasingly similar to currently extant forms. For this argument above to be true, you must believe that these species popped into existence from nothing, fully formed, before suddenly going extinct, and then later on another species popped into existence fully formed from nothing that just so happened to be almost identical to the previous species (despite sharing no ancestry) before then going extinct itself, and this process continued all the way until the present day, when suddenly new species stopped popping into existence from nothing and the only means for similar looking organisms to arrive became reproduction.

Obviously, this argument is absurd.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a lie. We have repeatedly directly observed speciation in living populations. We have witnessed first hand single populations of an organism spread into two different geographical locations and, over a certain amount of time, the first population is no longer capable of interbreeding with the second. This has been observed multiple times:

Ring species - Wikipedia

So, if two populations of the same species can no longer interbreed, what does that indicate to you about the nature of genetic variance?


This is also a lie. What we see in the fossil record is gradual change. We find fossils of long extinct forms, then later in the record find fossils of very similar forms, getting increasingly similar to currently extant forms. For this argument above to be true, you must believe that these species popped into existence from nothing, fully formed, before suddenly going extinct, and then later on another species popped into existence fully formed from nothing that just so happened to be almost identical to the previous species (despite sharing no ancestry) before then going extinct itself, and this process continued all the way until the present day, when suddenly new species stopped popping into existence from nothing and the only means for similar looking organisms to arrive became reproduction.

Obviously, this argument is absurd.

Darwin claimed Finches couldn’t interbreed. It only took 200 years to observe that. They are humping like rabbits before their very eyes. Yet they refuse to correct Darwin’s mistakes in classification. So what makes you think they can be trusted for any claimed speciation just because they want them to be separate species????

They claimed Lions and Tigers couldn’t interbreed. It only took over 40 years to observe that.

They claimed Grizzly bears and Polar bears couldn’t interbreed. Only took a few hundred years to observe that.

Claim after claim falsified, but they got it right this time. Right? Right? But they said they had it right the last time too.....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Darwin claimed Finches couldn’t interbreed. It only took 200 years to observe that. They are humping like rabbits before their very eyes. Yet they refuse to correct Darwin’s mistakes in classification. So what makes you think they can be trusted for any claimed speciation just because they want them to be separate species????

So, you're just going to ignore all the observed instances of ring species I mentioned and focus on one error (that wasn't even really an error) stated over 150 years ago that HAS been corrected by observation?

They claimed Lions and Tigers couldn’t interbreed. It only took over 40 years to observe that.

Why are you so obsessed with the past and avoiding the CURRENT evidence?

They claimed Grizzly bears and Polar bears couldn’t interbreed. Only took a few hundred years to observe that.

See above.

Claim after claim falsified, but they got it right this time. Right? Right? But they said they had it right the last time too.....

Fascinating.

Any response to what I actually wrote?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, you're just going to ignore all the observed instances of ring species I mentioned and focus on one error (that wasn't even really an error) stated over 150 years ago that HAS been corrected by observation?

No it hasn’t. They still call them separate species despite humping like rabbits in front of their eyes....

No, you are just going to ignore they have been wrong every single time in the past but assume they are correct this time, even if they assumed they were correct all the other times too.

Why are you so obsessed with the past and avoiding the CURRENT evidence?


See above.


Fascinating.

Any response to what I actually wrote?

I responded. You just didn’t like hearing they’ve never been right before even if they claimed they were right then too. Just like your claiming they are right this time......

You forgot this part in your citation....

“Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely.”

So it seems their is dissent in the ranks as to whether these are in actuality separate species or the same species.....

So why should I accept as fact something evolutionists can’t even decide amongst themselves if it’s true or not?????

Because you want it to be so?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it hasn’t. They still call them separate species despite humping like rabbits in front of their eyes....

No, you are just going to ignore they have been wrong every single time in the past but assume they are correct this time, even if they assumed they were correct all the other times too.

Ah, classic "ignore the facts" logic. "It doesn't matter what the facts ACTUALLY say, because they can be proven wrong in the future".

There is literally no position that you can possibly accept, then.

I responded.

Lie. You didn't directly address ring species, you didn't answer my question, and you completely ignored the argument about the fossil record. You demonstrably failed to respond.

You just didn’t like hearing they’ve never been right before even if they claimed they were right then too. Just like your claiming they are right this time......

You mean, aside from the fact that I even SAID that they have been wrong in the past?

You forgot this part in your citation....

“Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely.”

So it seems their is dissent in the ranks as to whether these are in actuality separate species or the same species.....

So you're just going to ignore all the evidence presented that has any kind of debate on it?

So why should I accept as fact something evolutionists can’t even decide amongst themselves if it’s true or not?????

Why claim things about evolution when you aren't even educated on what evolution says?

Because you want it to be so?

Since your entire argument springs wholesale from your theological objection to evolution, you really don't want to start throwing that stone in this particular glass house.

 

[ecco]

How can creationists agree microevolution occurs
but disagree with the idea of macroevolution?

Because God said He made different Kinds.

Of course, there had to be microevolution. That is obvious from the fact that there are hundreds of dog types all descended from just two dogs on the ark.

Of course, there can't be macroevolution. That is obvious from the fact that no one has ever seen a cat come from a monkey.

That should be easy to understand.​

And therein lies your answer. It's simple.

ETA: [It's also pretty much what deeje wrote in post #3]

Actually, it's simplistic. If you want to know all about the hows and whys of everything, there is no need to study. Just read Genesis. A ten-year-old can understand Genesis. There is no need to waste time gettin' edjicated.

That leaves more time to tell everyone about the soon-to-happen glorious return of Jesus Christ and how He will take everyone, except the evilutionists, up into heaven.

 

[ecco]

To suggest that a single celled organism, at sometime in the dim, dark past, spontaneously sprang into existence for no apparent reason,

Who suggests that?

We know that scientists do not suggest that.
We know that the only ones who suggest that are creationists building strawmen.

Is that what you tried to do, deeje?

Actually, it's not even a very good strawman. The only ones it's meant to impress are other fundy creos.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ah, classic "ignore the facts" logic. "It doesn't matter what the facts ACTUALLY say, because they can be proven wrong in the future".

No, that's the evolutionists thinking that Darwin was best at, finding missing ancestors in the future that still haven't been found.

Your confusing running the odds that they have never been right before, with figuring the odds are they are wrong this time as well.....

They have claimed they were correct even if every single time they ended up being wrong....

But you are probably too young to remember the Colecanth and how it was proclaimed for years as the missing link between sea and land..... For years we creationists had to listen to your proclamations of science fact, which in the end turned out to be science fiction.....

You have yet to give any reason why it is different this time? besides they say sao. But they said so every other time as well....

There is literally no position that you can possibly accept, then.

Sure there is. reality.....

Husky mates with husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species (the Chinook). Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff "evolves" into the Chinook. The Husky stays Husky, the Mastiff stays Mastiff. And such is why every creature in the fossil record remains the same across the millions of years of their existence. And is why new forms appear suddenly where they never existed before. I just understand they can't see what mated with what from a pile of bones and so incorrectly assume one evolved into another, or need "missing" common ancestors.

Lie. You didn't directly address ring species, you didn't answer my question, and you completely ignored the argument about the fossil record. You demonstrably failed to respond.

I answered your question. if you can't even agree among yourselves as to the actuality of their being separate species.... why should I?

You mean, aside from the fact that I even SAID that they have been wrong in the past?

And have given not a single good reason why we should assume they are correct this time. Since they can't even agree among themselves if they are actually separate species and question their own research.....

So you're just going to ignore all the evidence presented that has any kind of debate on it?

No, I am ignoring your insistence I accept it as fact when their is debate among evolutionists themselves as to IF it is even fact....

Why claim things about evolution when you aren't even educated on what evolution says?

Standard response by evolutionists when they have nothing scientific to add....

Since your entire argument springs wholesale from your theological objection to evolution, you really don't want to start throwing that stone in this particular glass house.

It has nothing to do with my theology. Many Christians believe in evolution so to insist it is incompatible with religion would be silly, now wouldn't it. Unless you are claiming those Christians are not Christians?????? I reject it because it is just PLAIN WRONG.......

Standard response of evolutionists. When they can't defend their theory with science, bring religion into the discussion..... I never mentioned the Bible once, but merely argued from a data based stance....

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that's the evolutionists thinking that Darwin was best at, finding missing ancestors in the future that still haven't been found.

Your confusing running the odds that they have never been right before, with figuring the odds are they are wrong this time as well.....

They have claimed they were correct even if every single time they ended up being wrong....

But you are probably too young to remember the Colecanth and how it was proclaimed for years as the missing link between sea and land..... For years we creationists had to listen to your proclamations of science fact, which in the end turned out to be science fiction.....

You have yet to give any reason why it is different this time? besides they say sao. But they said so every other time as well....

That specific ancestors were to be 'found' was never a prediction or implication of the theory. What is predicted and what has been found are countless transitional fossils. So many that almost all fossils can be shown to be transitional today. And you have yet to show one thing that was "wrong". All you can show is your misunderstanding of the theory at best. Why make false claims about others? It does not do your user name any good.

Sure there is. reality.....

Husky mates with husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species (the Chinook). Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff "evolves" into the Chinook. The Husky stays Husky, the Mastiff stays Mastiff. And such is why every creature in the fossil record remains the same across the millions of years of their existence. And is why new forms appear suddenly where they never existed before. I just understand they can't see what mated with what from a pile of bones and so incorrectly assume one evolved into another, or need "missing" common ancestors.

And your misunderstanding of evolution is not a valid argument. Try again.

I answered your question. if you can't even agree among yourselves as to the actuality of their being separate species.... why should I?


And have given not a single good reason why we should assume they are correct this time. Since they can't even agree among themselves if they are actually separate species and question their own research.....


No, I am ignoring your insistence I accept it as fact when their is debate among evolutionists themselves as to IF it is even fact....


Standard response by evolutionists when they have nothing scientific to add....


It has nothing to do with my theology. Many Christians believe in evolution so to insist it is incompatible with religion would be silly, now wouldn't it. Unless you are claiming those Christians are not Christians?????? I reject it because it is just PLAIN WRONG.......

Standard response of evolutionists. When they can't defend their theory with science, bring religion into the discussion..... I never mentioned the Bible once, but merely argued from a data based stance....

Obviously all you can do is to repeat errors. Tell me, why do you not take me up on learning the basics of science so that you do not repeat these errors?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because God said He made different Kinds.

Of course, there had to be microevolution. That is obvious from the fact that there are hundreds of dog types all descended from just two dogs on the ark.
​

NOOOOOOOOOOO.

Dogs are all the same Kind. There is no evolution in the slightest, macro or micro.

Just understand everything was closer to genetic perfection, because mutations had not yet damaged the genome.

Do you actually believe it was a piece of Adams side that was taken, knowing what we know about genetics????

It was half of his chromosomes that were used to make Eve. Which is why when the two combine - one flesh is made. For this reason a man will leave his parents. To create a new flesh - new life and raise his own family. The two (separate chromosomes - 1 from male - 1 from female) shall become one flesh (one child).

Don't fall for that silly microevolution PR. All possibilities were already present in the genomes of the original pair.....

Dogs were created from breeding, not because the wolf evolved into anything.....​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That specific ancestors were to be 'found' was never a prediction or implication of the theory. What is predicted and what has been found are countless transitional fossils. So many that almost all fossils can be shown to be transitional today. And you have yet to show one thing that was "wrong". All you can show is your misunderstanding of the theory at best. Why make false claims about others? It does not do your user name any good.

Not a single transitional creature has been found......

These:

Are no different than these:

just different breeds within their own respective species.

And your misunderstanding of evolution is not a valid argument. Try again.

Your bald faced claim of misunderstanding without showing how it is so is not a valid argument either. in fact is worse than no argument at all....

Standard response of evolutionists when they have nothing scientific to present....

Obviously all you can do is to repeat errors. Tell me, why do you not take me up on learning the basics of science so that you do not repeat these errors?

Obviously all you can do is make claims of errors without showing how there are any errors.

Standard response of evolutionists when they have nothing scientific to present....

Apparently you don't understand the concept of falsification....